Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Dec 2004 16:10:10 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 10 Dec 2004 01:08:21 GMT, wrote:

All I can offer is an anecdote. (But remember: the plural of anecdote
is data.) I was introduced to the green pen in an audio shop some years
ago. It sounded like a total crock to me, but I let the guy play me an
untreated CD (Barbra Streisand--ugh!), then color the rim and play it
again. Damn if it didn't sound better the second time! I don't think
doing a DBT could have made me any more skeptical than I already was,
and yet I heard a difference.

That is exactly how expectation bias works, and if a thousand people
'hear' the same thing, it's not data, it's just confirmation that
expectation bias works - but we already knew that.

OTOH, I can offer a DBT. Four of us got together many years ago, after
hours in a record store, and we had six identical copies of Dave
Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', an Arcam carousel player, and a rather
nice system comprising a Naim amplifier and a pair of Epos ES11
speakers, carefully set up in the store (one of those 'enthusiast'
record stores where the owner was an audiophile as well as a record
buff). After checking that all the naked CDs sounded the same (and
rejecting two that semed a little different), two of the discs were
'greened', and the four discs were loaded into the player by one of
the participants. Another, who hadn't seen the discs loaded, was
assigned to the remote control, to play the same track from the four
discs in random order, while we all ticked off score sheets for
'green' or 'untreated', and the operator/listener noted which disc was
playing on each occasion. Two exhausting hours later, we compared
notes over a few beers, and the result was that we had a completely
random scatter, with no apparent sonic effect whatever from the green
pen.


Just out of curiousity, did you listen "sighted" first and did you determine
what you thought you were hearing / what you were "listening for"?

No, we only listened blind, and we were listening for *any*
differences. Two of the 'panel', including the store owner, were
convinced that green pens made the sound smoother.

How did you determine, then, that two of the 'naked' CDs sounded
a little different?


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

On 14 Dec 2004 00:48:57 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Dec 2004 16:10:10 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 10 Dec 2004 01:08:21 GMT, wrote:

All I can offer is an anecdote. (But remember: the plural of anecdote
is data.) I was introduced to the green pen in an audio shop some years
ago. It sounded like a total crock to me, but I let the guy play me an
untreated CD (Barbra Streisand--ugh!), then color the rim and play it
again. Damn if it didn't sound better the second time! I don't think
doing a DBT could have made me any more skeptical than I already was,
and yet I heard a difference.

That is exactly how expectation bias works, and if a thousand people
'hear' the same thing, it's not data, it's just confirmation that
expectation bias works - but we already knew that.

OTOH, I can offer a DBT. Four of us got together many years ago, after
hours in a record store, and we had six identical copies of Dave
Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', an Arcam carousel player, and a rather
nice system comprising a Naim amplifier and a pair of Epos ES11
speakers, carefully set up in the store (one of those 'enthusiast'
record stores where the owner was an audiophile as well as a record
buff). After checking that all the naked CDs sounded the same (and
rejecting two that semed a little different), two of the discs were
'greened', and the four discs were loaded into the player by one of
the participants. Another, who hadn't seen the discs loaded, was
assigned to the remote control, to play the same track from the four
discs in random order, while we all ticked off score sheets for
'green' or 'untreated', and the operator/listener noted which disc was
playing on each occasion. Two exhausting hours later, we compared
notes over a few beers, and the result was that we had a completely
random scatter, with no apparent sonic effect whatever from the green
pen.

Just out of curiousity, did you listen "sighted" first and did you determine
what you thought you were hearing / what you were "listening for"?

No, we only listened blind, and we were listening for *any*
differences. Two of the 'panel', including the store owner, were
convinced that green pens made the sound smoother.

How did you determine, then, that two of the 'naked' CDs sounded
a little different?

First round of the listening test was for the purpose of checking that
we had a level playing field. We didn't in two cases. Interesting in
its own right, but we didn't investigate.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Steven Sullivan wrote:



CaptLego wrote:
Chung wrote in message
...
The other night my objectivist friend came over for dinner. Now I
like to eat peas, and I was excited to serve a new brand of peas that
I'd recently discovered. My old peas were OK, I guess, but they were
kinda grey and smelled funny. The new peas are a nice green, and
smell good, too. I think they taste better. My objectivist friend
laughed at me, and told me I'd been duped again. He explained that
all peas taste the same (given that they are the same size and
texture, and that less than 1% are spoiled). To prove it to me, he
blindfolded me and put a clothspin on my nose. Then he fed me a
serving of each brand of peas. Sure enough, I could not tell any
difference based on taste alone. Once again, I was influenced by
"expectation bias".

Or was I? I don't normally eat dinner blindfolded with a clothspin on
my nose. Maybe in normal dining circumstances, my olfactory inputs
get combined with the signals from my tastebuds in some
incomprehensible neurological process of my brain.

In fact, they are. It's not incomprehensible; the neural tracts
connecting olfactory to taste centers were mapped long ago, I think.
It's why when you have a stuffy nose, food doesn't taste as
distinctive.

Exactly! In fact, if you completely lose your sense of smell, due to disease
or accident, you lose your sense of taste completely as well. We all thought
our psychology teacher in high school was nuts when he told us this. But he
blind-folded us and put a clothespin on our noses, and put either a wedge of
onion on our tongues, or a wedge of apple, and none of us could tell which we
had "tasted" until the clothespin was removed!

What this has to do with high-end audio escapes me, but I thought it would be
interesting. Sorry for digressing! : )

Jeff

On 15 Dec 2004 02:17:43 GMT, (UnionPac2004)
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
CaptLego wrote:
Chung wrote in message
...
The other night my objectivist friend came over for dinner. Now I
like to eat peas, and I was excited to serve a new brand of peas that
I'd recently discovered. My old peas were OK, I guess, but they were
kinda grey and smelled funny. The new peas are a nice green, and
smell good, too. I think they taste better. My objectivist friend
laughed at me, and told me I'd been duped again. He explained that
all peas taste the same (given that they are the same size and
texture, and that less than 1% are spoiled). To prove it to me, he
blindfolded me and put a clothspin on my nose. Then he fed me a
serving of each brand of peas. Sure enough, I could not tell any
difference based on taste alone. Once again, I was influenced by
"expectation bias".

Or was I? I don't normally eat dinner blindfolded with a clothspin on
my nose. Maybe in normal dining circumstances, my olfactory inputs
get combined with the signals from my tastebuds in some
incomprehensible neurological process of my brain.

In fact, they are. It's not incomprehensible; the neural tracts
connecting olfactory to taste centers were mapped long ago, I think.
It's why when you have a stuffy nose, food doesn't taste as
distinctive.

Exactly! In fact, if you completely lose your sense of smell, due to disease
or accident, you lose your sense of taste completely as well. We all thought
our psychology teacher in high school was nuts when he told us this. But he
blind-folded us and put a clothespin on our noses, and put either a wedge of
onion on our tongues, or a wedge of apple, and none of us could tell which we
had "tasted" until the clothespin was removed!

What this has to do with high-end audio escapes me, but I thought it would be
interesting. Sorry for digressing! : )

Sorry I didn't get in on this one before but it is relevant. Almost
all our perceptions of external events are, unless constrained by test
conditions (like a clothespin on the nose), a compilation of input
from multiple senses.

Oh, and olfaction is not all of what we perceive of as taste; texture,
temperature, pH, etc., also contribute.

Kal

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 14 Dec 2004 00:48:57 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Just out of curiousity, did you listen "sighted" first and did you determine
what you thought you were hearing / what you were "listening for"?

No, we only listened blind, and we were listening for *any*
differences. Two of the 'panel', including the store owner, were
convinced that green pens made the sound smoother.

How did you determine, then, that two of the 'naked' CDs sounded
a little different?

First round of the listening test was for the purpose of checking that
we had a level playing field. We didn't in two cases. Interesting in
its own right, but we didn't investigate.


But was that a sighted round, or blind?


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

On 16 Dec 2004 01:13:38 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 14 Dec 2004 00:48:57 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Just out of curiousity, did you listen "sighted" first and did you determine
what you thought you were hearing / what you were "listening for"?

No, we only listened blind, and we were listening for *any*
differences. Two of the 'panel', including the store owner, were
convinced that green pens made the sound smoother.

How did you determine, then, that two of the 'naked' CDs sounded
a little different?

First round of the listening test was for the purpose of checking that
we had a level playing field. We didn't in two cases. Interesting in
its own right, but we didn't investigate.


But was that a sighted round, or blind?

Blind - that should be obvious from the previous comments.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 01:13:38 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 14 Dec 2004 00:48:57 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Just out of curiousity, did you listen "sighted" first and did you determine
what you thought you were hearing / what you were "listening for"?

No, we only listened blind, and we were listening for *any*
differences. Two of the 'panel', including the store owner, were
convinced that green pens made the sound smoother.

How did you determine, then, that two of the 'naked' CDs sounded
a little different?

First round of the listening test was for the purpose of checking that
we had a level playing field. We didn't in two cases. Interesting in
its own right, but we didn't investigate.


But was that a sighted round, or blind?

Blind - that should be obvious from the previous comments.


Then that result, where you detected difference between two supposedly identical
CDs in a blind test, is *far* more interesting than the 'green pen'
results. Was there any follow up?


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 15 Dec 2004 02:17:43 GMT, (UnionPac2004)
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
CaptLego wrote:
Chung wrote in message
...
The other night my objectivist friend came over for dinner. Now I
like to eat peas, and I was excited to serve a new brand of peas that
I'd recently discovered. My old peas were OK, I guess, but they were
kinda grey and smelled funny. The new peas are a nice green, and
smell good, too. I think they taste better. My objectivist friend
laughed at me, and told me I'd been duped again. He explained that
all peas taste the same (given that they are the same size and
texture, and that less than 1% are spoiled). To prove it to me, he
blindfolded me and put a clothspin on my nose. Then he fed me a
serving of each brand of peas. Sure enough, I could not tell any
difference based on taste alone. Once again, I was influenced by
"expectation bias".

Or was I? I don't normally eat dinner blindfolded with a clothspin on
my nose. Maybe in normal dining circumstances, my olfactory inputs
get combined with the signals from my tastebuds in some
incomprehensible neurological process of my brain.

In fact, they are. It's not incomprehensible; the neural tracts
connecting olfactory to taste centers were mapped long ago, I think.
It's why when you have a stuffy nose, food doesn't taste as
distinctive.

Exactly! In fact, if you completely lose your sense of smell, due to
disease
or accident, you lose your sense of taste completely as well. We all
thought
our psychology teacher in high school was nuts when he told us this. But he
blind-folded us and put a clothespin on our noses, and put either a wedge of
onion on our tongues, or a wedge of apple, and none of us could tell which
we
had "tasted" until the clothespin was removed!

What this has to do with high-end audio escapes me, but I thought it would
be
interesting. Sorry for digressing! : )

Sorry I didn't get in on this one before but it is relevant. Almost
all our perceptions of external events are, unless constrained by test
conditions (like a clothespin on the nose), a compilation of input
from multiple senses.


You're absolutely correct. I just never realised HOW important the interaction
of multiple senses is until our Psych teacher performed this test...



Oh, and olfaction is not all of what we perceive of as taste; texture,
temperature, pH, etc., also contribute.

Agreed, but I still think the nose is the most important factor in taste. I'm
wondering, in the realm of "taste", would texture and temperature also be a
function of "touch", even though you're using your tongue? I'm not sure how
they classify such things...

Jeff

On 17 Dec 2004 21:28:27 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 01:13:38 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 14 Dec 2004 00:48:57 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Just out of curiousity, did you listen "sighted" first and did you determine
what you thought you were hearing / what you were "listening for"?

No, we only listened blind, and we were listening for *any*
differences. Two of the 'panel', including the store owner, were
convinced that green pens made the sound smoother.

How did you determine, then, that two of the 'naked' CDs sounded
a little different?

First round of the listening test was for the purpose of checking that
we had a level playing field. We didn't in two cases. Interesting in
its own right, but we didn't investigate.

But was that a sighted round, or blind?

Blind - that should be obvious from the previous comments.

Then that result, where you detected difference between two supposedly identical
CDs in a blind test, is *far* more interesting than the 'green pen'
results.

Possibly, or possibly the two CDs that sounded different had enough
pressing flaws to trigger the error mechanism often enough to be
audible. This was about ten years ago, so no way to rake over old
coals here. The CD was a Telarc, Dave Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck',
if it matters. I still have my (ungreened!) copy.

Was there any follow up?

I already stated that there was no follow up.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 12/17/04 10:06 PM, in article ,
"UnionPac2004" wrote:

Oh, and olfaction is not all of what we perceive of as taste; texture,
temperature, pH, etc., also contribute.

Agreed, but I still think the nose is the most important factor in taste. I'm
wondering, in the realm of "taste", would texture and temperature also be a
function of "touch", even though you're using your tongue? I'm not sure how
they classify such things...

Let's say you go to a Jazz Club - a really famous one, such as the Village
Vanguard in NYC. You listen to a top band, and have a great cocktail during
the performance. A little tipsy from the cocktail, you also have a snack
that you find delicious. The group is one of your favorite ones, and the
performance you find stellar - and the acoustics of the room certainly help,
but the band is great either way. Lets say this is before the 2003 smoking
band - and you like smoky jazz clubs

So, you have the following inputs:

1. Snack (taste)
2. Drink (slight enibriation)
3. Band (biased toward them to liking them)
4. Smoke in club (smell)
5. Music itself (well played - basic source is OK)
6. Acoustics being great (always helps)
7. Slightly unfamiliar setting of the Village Vanguard
8. State of Mind, you made a point of going to a club rather than slapping
a LP on the 'ol turntable. So you are also anticipating a good time.

I contend that all 8 things are part of the total experience, which
generates the "fun" aspects of your experience.

To separate it out and measure the decay times, frequency components,
recording the performance captures only a fraction of the experience - kind
of like how an mp3 discards a lot of information if ripped down to 128kbps.

Just some thoughts.

On 18 Dec 2004 03:06:47 GMT, (UnionPac2004)
wrote:

Agreed, but I still think the nose is the most important factor in taste. I'm
wondering, in the realm of "taste", would texture and temperature also be a
function of "touch", even though you're using your tongue? I'm not sure how
they classify such things...

The receptors for thermal sensation are not the same as for
mechanoreception. Texture, I surmise, must include mechanoreception
and proprioception (muscle tension).

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 18 Dec 2004 03:06:47 GMT, (UnionPac2004)
wrote:

Agreed, but I still think the nose is the most important factor in
taste. I'm
wondering, in the realm of "taste", would texture and temperature
also be a
function of "touch", even though you're using your tongue? I'm not
sure how
they classify such things...

The receptors for thermal sensation are not the same as for
mechanoreception. Texture, I surmise, must include mechanoreception
and proprioception (muscle tension).

Kal

Thanks for the info, Kal (Mr. Wizard)! : )

Jeff