Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: I heard it, every time. Less noise. (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: No, you didn't. You just *thought* you did. Please understand that the 'green pen' effect is a myth, in fact it all started as a practical joke. It doesn't do anything, because it *cannot* do anything. Try it again under blind conditions. Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Otherwise your suggestion is nothing more than a red herring. Regards, Mike |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Mkuller wrote:
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I heard it, every time. Less noise. (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: No, you didn't. You just *thought* you did. Please understand that the 'green pen' effect is a myth, in fact it all started as a practical joke. It doesn't do anything, because it *cannot* do anything. Try it again under blind conditions. Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Otherwise your suggestion is nothing more than a red herring. Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do. Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place. -- -S. ______ "You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH! |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Otherwise your suggestion is nothing more than a red herring. Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do. Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place. -S. I seem to remember reading in Stereophile that the CD Stoplight green ink pen was one of their recommended commponents. I BOUGHT 5! And, eventually realized that I could here no difference. At first I thought it might be my Stereo system. but, hell, it cost me $10,000 in '88 and was a great bargain with all components being reviewed in at least 1 magazine if not several. Sound is still fantastic and I long ago gave up on CD Stoplight. UGH! Best, Mark Allen Zimmerman * Chicago |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
mkuller wrote:
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Steven Sullivan wrote: Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to others for a while. Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the result of biases). "Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions. Here's why: Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with the test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the test.) So he's listening to the two CDs A and B, and then X is put on. Now he must take his fading memories of A and B (larger differences like loudness and frequency response seem to be eaisier to hold in memory for a little longer) and compare to X. His brain switches from relaxed listening to decision-making mode (left brain) as he struggles to compare X to A and B as the memories fade quickly. He must make a decision. Now. The memories are fading fast. Did he really hear more noise on A? Now what? Quick. Pick one. This is not nearly the same experience as "relaxed listening to music". Is Mr. Scarpitti a good ABX performer? It appears that individuals vary widely in their ABX abilities (like any other human testing ability). He has had no specific training other than some sighted listening. He may or may not be able to identify the same things he heard sighted under very different conditions (blind test) or he may not. You seem to feel this blind test is definitive - I call it flawed (unlike the controlled tests used in clinical research) and questionable. Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do. I believe I understand "what it can do" and that is show a lot of null results when there are subtle audible differences between compared components. Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place. Our assumptions begin at the different ends of the spectrum. Because you do not have a mechanism you understand for an audible effect here (as with comparing two 'competent' amps), you assume there can be no audible differences. And your blind test shows null results which reinforce your preconception. I go in with no assumptions and perform (what I consider careful, methodical, long tem) observational listening. When I hear differences that I cannot explain, I perform more listening or have other experienced listeners join me to see what they hear. Having no explanation in engineering or scientific terms does not concern me because I have seen that measured test results often do not correspond with experienced listeners' reports (JA's Stereophile correlations). To tie thais back to the title of the thread, you and some other objectivists here (certainly not all) seem to have a very narrow, rigid view on things you hear (or don't) in audio that do not correspond with what the rest of us audiophiles experience (even understanding the concepts of preconceptions and bias). You have Audio Critic to reinforce your views and I'll read the other audio publications that reinforce mine. It is not likely we will ever agree here. Regards, Mike |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
(Mkuller) wrote in message ...
mkuller wrote: Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Steven Sullivan wrote: Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to others for a while. Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the result of biases). "Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions. Here's why: Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with the test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the test.) That's not how I did it. I put on a CD, listening through my Stax Lambdas and my power amp. I listened to familiar music, and did not know what, if any, change might occur. Then I painted the sides per the instructions. I replaced the CD and heard less noise. I tried this again with several CDs, and most (but not all) followed suit. I got hold of second copy of one of these CDs, and tried a comparison test. I heard a difference. Later, I found a green platter that you place into the drawer. I tried it, and found a similar, but milder effect to using the pen. Since the pen was expensive and messy, I quit using it. I then saw a spray-on cleaner treatment that made similar claims. I tried it and heard no change. |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... c) Any time you'd like to drop in, I'll be happy to demonstrate that you most certainly did *not* hear any substantial difference That's an epistemological impossibility. I heard what I heard. I heard it repeatedly and consistently. Bias can't do that. Unless, of course, bias is so sophisticated it can vary its intensity and show up, all on cue. Michael, You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test. Read up about controlled listening tests. Try one yourself, it is actually pretty hard to arrange a good one, but it is worth trying if the subject interests you. Peter -- |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote: On 10 Oct 2003 18:46:28 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote: Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the result of biases). "Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions. Here's why: Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with the test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the test.) Just for the record the testers did not interfere with the subjects in the Sunshine experiment. One of the subject decided at a later date that he would cry "interference" even though he admitted the day following the experiment he had failed fair and square. So he's listening to the two CDs A and B, and then X is put on. Now he must take his fading memories of A and B (larger differences like loudness and frequency response seem to be eaisier to hold in memory for a little longer) and compare to X. His brain switches from relaxed listening to decision-making mode (left brain) as he struggles to compare X to A and B as the memories fade quickly. He must make a decision. Now. The memories are fading fast. Did he really hear more noise on A? Now what? Quick. Pick one. This is not nearly the same experience as "relaxed listening to music". In the first round of the Sunshine experiment the subject listened to one or the other amplifier with the only constriant that he was not able to tell by visual inspection which device was driving the speakers because the amplifier terminals were covered with an opaque cloth. This conditions were identical to thosa employed by the subject in his own system in daily use and he used his personally selected programs. Indeed he only had to identify whether hi own amplifier was driving his personal reference speakers. After "long term" exposure he only had to recognize his own amplifer when he heard it. If those 'subtle' differences that can only be heard with long term exposure (and long term memory, I would guess) were acoustically real it should have been easy for him to recognize his own gear. It seems unlikey that an inexpensive interloper would suddenly sound exactly like his personal kit (if I may use the British term) if those subtle long term differences were acoustically real and not a part of personal bias. IMO the situation boils down to a subjectivist claim that they can run a mile 10 seconds faster than any human but only with long-tern training (fair enough) but not if anyone is watching or using a stop watch. As ever, you distort reality to fit your agenda. There is no time limit for such a test, and further, there is no more reliance on memory than there is in a sighted comparison. Indeed, there is much *less* reliance on memory when an ABX switchbox is used. If testing is stressful per se, then a sighted test is no more or less stressful than a blind test, which can most certainly be carried out in a relaxed and long-term manner. Indeed I have conducted a long term ABX test where the subject has 5-weeks with the experimental set-up was installed in his personal reference system for program selection and training. In fact, I have done this myself, since I'm not involving others when I do DBTs for my own purposes. I have however found that small differences which I could identify using fast-switching techniques, were inaudible in such long-term testing. Indeed. And my experiment in "Flying Blind" (Audio magazine) showed that an individual who was unable to identify a certain level of distortion (known to be audible in ABX testing) under 16-weeks of open listening was able to correctly identify same with 6-second intervals with ABX testing. If anything, DBT with proximate switching is overly sensitive to any kind of acoustic difference subtle or otherwise. Is Mr. Scarpitti a good ABX performer? It appears that individuals vary widely in their ABX abilities (like any other human testing ability). He has had no specific training other than some sighted listening. He may or may not be able to identify the same things he heard sighted under very different conditions (blind test) or he may not. If the differences have an acoustical basis he will be able to more reliably identify them under ABX conditions, as evidenced above. You seem to feel this blind test is definitive - I call it flawed (unlike the controlled tests used in clinical research) and questionable. It is however vastly superior to *any* sighted test, for reasons given ad nauseam. Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do. I believe I understand "what it can do" and that is show a lot of null results when there are subtle audible differences between compared components. Why not establish those differences you claim are audible actually exist? Many have claimed same but none have conclusively demonstrated that they actually exist with even modest bias controls implemented. IMO it's time that some subjectivist stop arguing that extant evidence is flawed and present some of their own. Subjectivists routinely claim that known methods 'mask' differences yet have no evidence that this is true; and they have offered no contradictory evidence that has any modicum of bias control over known bias mechanisms. I have on multiple occasions attempted to verify the claims, under every possible level of sensitivity including the claimants personal reference systems under long-term training with significant travel paid by myself. But the subjectivist simply argue that they are right and everybody else is wrong without offering a single shred of evidence of their own. No, it simply shows null results when there are *no* audible differences. This occurs among many components which you fondly believe *should* sound different (like cables), but it just ain't so. The green pen is a classic example, since it basically *cannot* make a difference. Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place. Our assumptions begin at the different ends of the spectrum. Because you do not have a mechanism you understand for an audible effect here (as with comparing two 'competent' amps), you assume there can be no audible differences. And your blind test shows null results which reinforce your preconception. Actually those tests validate the "hypotheses." If there were true acoustic differences there is no way that a time-proximate bias double-blind controlled test could prevent subjects from hearing them. I go in with no assumptions and perform (what I consider careful, methodical, long tem) observational listening. No you don't, you perform sighted listening, and simply *ignore* its readily demonstrable fatal flaws. When I hear differences that I cannot explain, I perform more listening or have other experienced listeners join me to see what they hear. Having no explanation in engineering or scientific terms does not concern me because I have seen that measured test results often do not correspond with experienced listeners' reports (JA's Stereophile correlations). Indeed open-listening allows all kinds on non-acoustic factors to impinge on listeners 'perceptions.' You will however *never* find a non-sighted test which will show any difference due to the use of a green pen. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering And that's the truth. |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... c) Any time you'd like to drop in, I'll be happy to demonstrate that you most certainly did *not* hear any substantial difference That's an epistemological impossibility. I heard what I heard. I heard it repeatedly and consistently. Bias can't do that. Unless, of course, bias is so sophisticated it can vary its intensity and show up, all on cue. Michael, You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test. You have to show: 1. That such a thing exists 2. that it is more significant than any difference in the equipment I can easily offer counter-ecvidence in the form of three products, each of which behaved differently and CONSISTENTLY so, for which 'bias' (as usually understood) cannot account. Read up about controlled listening tests. Try one yourself, it is actually pretty hard to arrange a good one, but it is worth trying if the subject interests you. Peter |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
article snipped
This article reaffirms tow points I have made many times befo 1. Audio equipment (CD players in this example) all sounds different fr om one another. I am sure that if this test were repeated with amplifiers the r esults would be positive. 2. Ordinary audiophiles are not very good at dbts. Trained listeners perform much better. However, most dbts reported here use ordinary audio philes and get null results. That should not be surprising and those results meaningless, regardless of how many times they are repeated. Regards, Mike Just a few comments to the article. The background was that we would conduct a DBT in the presence of one US person from the AudioReview forum. This person did not show up but we decided to go through the test anyway. The audible difference is subtle in my ears. The chosen CD player was selected beacuse it was the *worst sounding* CD player found in the many blind tests previously made by the listeners. The difference between e.g. the H/K player and the reference DAC was none or very small. One error with the test is a sync problem, however, the test was performed in such a way that it was harder to verify differences due to the ABABA design (no ABX). Switching was not performed by the listener but in a more "random" fashion because of the small sync problem. Although there was a sync problem, I am confident that there was a difference between this CD player and the DAC. We performed many blind training sessions with significant results, without having the sync problem The blind session was performed with the switcher behind the listener and there was no visual contact between switcher and listener during the initial blind-tests. |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote in message ... Michael, You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test. You have to show: 1. That such a thing exists 2. that it is more significant than any difference in the equipment It most certainly exists. Any serious effort towards doing controlled blind testing in audio should convince you. The funny thing is that it doesn't have to work the way you expect: it may have no connexion to your conscious biases. Sometimes when people make fun of audiophiles, they imply that there are obvious connections between the illusory differences heard and the listener's preconceptions. I do not think this is true of the differences I hear, and I don't suppose that it is true of you either. The differences which are heard as a result of open listening tend to be "audiophile" type differences: more open, warmer, more natural, more lively, and their opposites: constricted, cold, unnatural and dreary. (This is by no means intended to be a complete list.) When such differences are detected in controlled testing, no one questions their significance. Even if you are not interested in doing any controlled testing yourself, you might be interested in reading some of the literature. My favorite article on the subject is: Peter Baxandall. "Audible amplifier distortion is not a mystery" in Wireless World November 1977. Peter. -- |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message ...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ... Peter Irwin wrote in message ... You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test. You have to show: 1. That such a thing exists No, actually, he does not. Yes, he does. How is it so clever? How does it make the spray-cleaner not work at all, ever, while allowing the green pen and green platter to work? isn't that some VERY sophisticated 'bias'? that itself calls for explanation, don't you think? There is a solid century and a half of research indicating such exists, along with a similar period of research conducted by a very large number of researchers regarding how easily the ear can be fooled into "hearing" things that just aren't there, starting with the likes of Helmholtz. The fact that bias and the ease of auditory deception has been SO soundly established by thousands of researchers, upon tens of thousands of subjects, and that the ONLY place that this has been challenged is by a few high-end audio hobbyists with next to no experience in the field, it would seem, kind sir, the burden is on YOU to show that such things as bias do NOT exist. 2. that it is more significant than any difference in the equipment I can easily offer counter-ecvidence in the form of three products, each of which behaved differently and CONSISTENTLY so, for which 'bias' (as usually understood) cannot account. Uh, talk about epistomoligical mumbo-jumbo, if bias is strong enough, it precisely explains what you are claiming. What bias are you talking about? Please, before you challenge this rather large and well established body of research, you should consider actually researching the data which you so enthusiastically tilt against. Know thine enemy, Ceasar said, for he is us, finished Pogo. I just did. You have not provided satisfactory replies. |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
On 15 Oct 2003 15:36:29 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: (Dick Pierce) wrote in message ... (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ... Peter Irwin wrote in message ... You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test. You have to show: 1. That such a thing exists No, actually, he does not. Yes, he does. How is it so clever? How does it make the spray-cleaner not work at all, ever, while allowing the green pen and green platter to work? isn't that some VERY sophisticated 'bias'? that itself calls for explanation, don't you think? No, it calls for verification under blind conditions. Why are you so afraid to check out your beliefs, and yet you insist that you are a skeptic? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 15 Oct 2003 15:36:29 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Dick Pierce) wrote in message ... (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ... Peter Irwin wrote in message ... You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test. You have to show: 1. That such a thing exists No, actually, he does not. Yes, he does. How is it so clever? How does it make the spray-cleaner not work at all, ever, while allowing the green pen and green platter to work? isn't that some VERY sophisticated 'bias'? that itself calls for explanation, don't you think? No, it calls for verification under blind conditions. Why are you so afraid to check out your beliefs, and yet you insist that you are a skeptic? The differing and consistent performance of three products calls for explanation. |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Yes, I was aware of the use of overlays in photo's for astronomy.
But Mr. Scarpitti is the person who mentioned 'side by side' comparison. And wasn't speaking of the blinkscope method of comparison it would seem. Dennis "normanstrong" wrote in message ... "Dennis Moore" wrote in message ... "Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:2Xifb. No, it does not apply to photographic lens testing. The results are fixed on film and visible at any time. Side-by-side comparisons are possible. How would lens testing be different? Yes, side by side comparisons are possible. But you can only look at one photo at a time. Switching between them still means a delay and memory is involved all the same. Dennis Have you ever heard of the "blink microscope"? Zeiss designed this device almost 100 years ago. Its purpose was to discover whether any of 1000's of stars had moved between 2 photographic exposures of the same piece of sky. Memory is not involved; you are looking for movement only. Norm Strong |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Dennis Moore" said
"norman strong" said "Dennis Moore" said "Michael Scarpitti" said But then, about a week ago, a moderator intoned... "As of now, all blind test related threads are ended. Any post mentioning them will be returned including those sent before this was posted. "And also as of now, any new thread on the subject will very likely be rejected." Look, are they ended, or not? Has control been lost altogether? Frankly, neither side has presented a coherent case for their position because neither side knows what the hell they are talking about. There are no longer anyone participating in these discussions who have any sound, fundamental foundation for their opinions. Those that might have simply given up, leaving it to, frankly, a bunch of rank amateur wannabees and pontificants whose total sum knowledge pales miserably in the face of what the real experts forget about the topic when they comb the remaining hairs on their heads. I'm not talking about the self-proclaimed "subjectivists," or the self-appointed "objectivists," I'm talking about the whole bunch, with BLESSED few exceptions. The lot of you are holding forth on topics about which you have SO little knowledge it has become sadly laughable. And, unfortunately, r.a.h-e is a rather faithful mirror of this idiotic "industry" as a whole. Feh. |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
The lot of you are holding forth on topics about which you have
SO little knowledge it has become sadly laughable. And, unfortunately, r.a.h-e is a rather faithful mirror of this idiotic "industry" as a whole. Feh. Right on! You go Dick. Is it the fault of our school systems, or Dr. Spock's book that advocated less strict parenting than the Victorian generation? Or is it the pervasive media that we should blame? Regards, Mike |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Can we please not continue a conversation about why we're not going to
continue a conversation? "Mkuller" wrote in message news:bkznb.51756$e01.128587@attbi_s02... The lot of you are holding forth on topics about which you have SO little knowledge it has become sadly laughable. And, unfortunately, r.a.h-e is a rather faithful mirror of this idiotic "industry" as a whole. Feh. Right on! You go Dick. Is it the fault of our school systems, or Dr. Spock's book that advocated less strict parenting than the Victorian generation? Or is it the pervasive media that we should blame? Regards, Mike |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
(Mkuller) wrote in message ...
mkuller wrote: Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Steven Sullivan wrote: Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to others for a while. Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the result of biases). Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these effects has not been established. "Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions. Here's why: Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with the test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the test.) So he's listening to the two CDs A and B, and then X is put on. Now he must take his fading memories of A and B (larger differences like loudness and frequency response seem to be eaisier to hold in memory for a little longer) and compare to X. His brain switches from relaxed listening to decision-making mode (left brain) as he struggles to compare X to A and B as the memories fade quickly. He must make a decision. Now. The memories are fading fast. Did he really hear more noise on A? Now what? Quick. Pick one. This is not nearly the same experience as "relaxed listening to music". Is Mr. Scarpitti a good ABX performer? It appears that individuals vary widely in their ABX abilities (like any other human testing ability). He has had no specific training other than some sighted listening. He may or may not be able to identify the same things he heard sighted under very different conditions (blind test) or he may not. You seem to feel this blind test is definitive - I call it flawed (unlike the controlled tests used in clinical research) and questionable. Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do. I believe I understand "what it can do" and that is show a lot of null results when there are subtle audible differences between compared components. Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place. Our assumptions begin at the different ends of the spectrum. Because you do not have a mechanism you understand for an audible effect here (as with comparing two 'competent' amps), you assume there can be no audible differences. And your blind test shows null results which reinforce your preconception. I go in with no assumptions and perform (what I consider careful, methodical, long tem) observational listening. When I hear differences that I cannot explain, I perform more listening or have other experienced listeners join me to see what they hear. Having no explanation in engineering or scientific terms does not concern me because I have seen that measured test results often do not correspond with experienced listeners' reports (JA's Stereophile correlations). To tie thais back to the title of the thread, you and some other objectivists here (certainly not all) seem to have a very narrow, rigid view on things you hear (or don't) in audio that do not correspond with what the rest of us audiophiles experience (even understanding the concepts of preconceptions and bias). You have Audio Critic to reinforce your views and I'll read the other audio publications that reinforce mine. It is not likely we will ever agree here. Regards, Mike |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote in message ... mkuller wrote: Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Steven Sullivan wrote: Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to others for a while. Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the result of biases). Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these effects has not been established. ...snip remainder.... Sure it has. In "Can You Trust Your Ears" (AES Preprint 3177; 1991 Convention) I show results of an experiment (31 subjects, 431 trials) where it can be seen that humans (housewives to audiophiles) are strongly biased to report "preference" for one of two identical sound presentations and to describe small (1 dB) differences in level as differences in 'quality.' If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration techniques. (or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels ..... EVER. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration
techniques. (or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels .... EVER. At Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica this has never been the case IME. Same for Acoustic Image in North Hollywood. They have always given me full control of the levels in any comparisons. They have always just hit the mute switch when changing over components. One of the most interesting things I ever saw at Optimal Enchantment was the owner, Randy Cooley, auditioning a very well known line of electronics. The owner of the company, the man with his name on the face plate personally brought the gear for Randy to audition to consider carrying the line. Despite the companie's excellent reputation Randy did not like the sound. He chose to carry the line despite this because of demand. He always openly maintained that he personally didn't like that brand. I have found the same kind of candidness from Elliot at Acoustic Image about the gear he sells as well. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this...
-- Best Regards, Lou "Nousaine" wrote in message news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51... (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Mkuller) wrote in message ... mkuller wrote: Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Steven Sullivan wrote: Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to others for a while. Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the result of biases). Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these effects has not been established. ..snip remainder.... Sure it has. In "Can You Trust Your Ears" (AES Preprint 3177; 1991 Convention) I show results of an experiment (31 subjects, 431 trials) where it can be seen that humans (housewives to audiophiles) are strongly biased to report "preference" for one of two identical sound presentations and to describe small (1 dB) differences in level as differences in 'quality.' If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration techniques. (or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels .... EVER. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
"Lou"
That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this... -- Best Regards, Lou Sure they do. That has been the modus operandi at three quarters or more of the demo's I've ever seen. Further, it doesn't even have to consciously used as a 'trick'; when "it's just the way we do things here." I'd rather not let the main point go overlooked here; acoustical levels are seldom, if ever, matched in audio demonstrations at the CES, the local salon or in your listening room. "Nousaine" wrote in message news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51... (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Mkuller) wrote in message ... mkuller wrote: Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Steven Sullivan wrote: Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to others for a while. Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the result of biases). Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these effects has not been established. ..snip remainder.... Sure it has. In "Can You Trust Your Ears" (AES Preprint 3177; 1991 Convention) I show results of an experiment (31 subjects, 431 trials) where it can be seen that humans (housewives to audiophiles) are strongly biased to report "preference" for one of two identical sound presentations and to describe small (1 dB) differences in level as differences in 'quality.' If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration techniques. (or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels .... EVER. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51... If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration techniques. (or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels .... EVER. "Lou" wrote in message ... That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this... -- Best Regards, Lou Actually, honest folks do it all the time, without realizing it. They may honestly believe that one unit sounds better than another, so they crank up the volume until it really does sound better. Human nature. You don't have to think salesmen are crooks to realize that in-store demonstrations, as typically practiced, are of questionable value. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Shall we try again;
You said; " Sure they do. That has been the modus operandi at three quarters or more of the demo's I've ever seen. Further, it doesn't even have to consciously used as a 'trick'; when "it's just the way we do things here."" I said; "honest folks do not do this..." If they are honest, they do not do this. Everyone knows it, so if they do it, they do it knowingly, and are thus not being honest, IMO. -- Best Regards, Lou "Nousaine" wrote in message news:VbYpb.108382$Fm2.93486@attbi_s04... "Lou" That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this... -- Best Regards, Lou Sure they do. That has been the modus operandi at three quarters or more of the demo's I've ever seen. Further, it doesn't even have to consciously used as a 'trick'; when "it's just the way we do things here." I'd rather not let the main point go overlooked here; acoustical levels are seldom, if ever, matched in audio demonstrations at the CES, the local salon or in your listening room. "Nousaine" wrote in message news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51... (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Mkuller) wrote in message ... mkuller wrote: Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed, please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Steven Sullivan wrote: Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect* of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded, using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not. Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to others for a while. Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the result of biases). Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these effects has not been established. ..snip remainder.... Sure it has. In "Can You Trust Your Ears" (AES Preprint 3177; 1991 Convention) I show results of an experiment (31 subjects, 431 trials) where it can be seen that humans (housewives to audiophiles) are strongly biased to report "preference" for one of two identical sound presentations and to describe small (1 dB) differences in level as differences in 'quality.' If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration techniques. (or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels .... EVER. |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
I'll concede that an amateur sales person might do this unknowingly, but I
have known about it since the early 80's, if not the late 70's, so one would have to assume that they are either new to audio, have their head buried somewhere it ought not be, or that they are not honest, IMO. -- Best Regards, Lou "Paul Abelson" wrote in message ... "Nousaine" wrote in message news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51... If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration techniques. (or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels .... EVER. "Lou" wrote in message ... That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this... -- Best Regards, Lou Actually, honest folks do it all the time, without realizing it. They may honestly believe that one unit sounds better than another, so they crank up the volume until it really does sound better. Human nature. You don't have to think salesmen are crooks to realize that in-store demonstrations, as typically practiced, are of questionable value. |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:52:19 GMT, "Lou"
wrote: Shall we try again; You said; " Sure they do. That has been the modus operandi at three quarters or more of the demo's I've ever seen. Further, it doesn't even have to consciously used as a 'trick'; when "it's just the way we do things here."" I said; "honest folks do not do this..." If they are honest, they do not do this. Everyone knows it, so if they do it, they do it knowingly, and are thus not being honest, IMO. Sorry, you may be missing a major point. Many 'high end' dealers, while basically honest, have been sucked into the same bull**** as their customers, so they truly believe that if they perceive amp A to be 'better' than amp B, then it *must* be true, and there's no need for silliness like matching levels, or blind testing. After all, *everyone* can hear these 'night and day' differences - can't they? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Stewart said
If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration techniques. (or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels .... EVER. I said At Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica this has never been the case IME. Same for Acoustic Image in North Hollywood. They have always given me full control of the levels in any comparisons. They have always just hit the mute switch when changing over components. Stewart said This won't necessarily match levels either because input sensitivities can vary. True. In some cases that isn't an issue though. Stewart said My point is that levels are never matched except by Kentucky windage and that floor personnel will, over time, employ techniques that tend to sell product, even when they may not be consciously aware of the particular bias mechanisms. I was simply pointing out that in some "audio salons" here in L.A. those techniques are not employed. If I am given control of the levels the sales person cannot employ techniques using levels to seel the products. |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
Stewart didn't say any of the above, Tom did. OTOH, I agree with him.
OTGH, if you believe that level controls are the only sales technique used in high-end salons, then much is revealed................. -- It was the only one under discussion. I was just staying on topic. If you wish to discuss other techniques it may make for an interesting topic and a useful one. |