Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greg Lee said:

I took a selection of spices that were all
in the same type of bottle, closed my eyes, shuffled the bottles
around, and opened and sniffed them one by one, trying to identify
the spice by name. I was sure I could do it but was quite amazed to
discover that I couldn't do it at all.


IIRC the limit is 3 scents, after that the nose gets overloaded.
  #42   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Mark DeBellis wrote:
"Buster Mudd" wrote:

Because "hearing" is a cognitive process; it takes place in the brain,
not in the ear. So if your brain tells you you didn't hear it, even if
soundwaves did strike your eardrum...and even (!) if at an earlier time
your brain told you that you did hear it...for all intents & purposes,
you didn't hear it. Saying "I heard it" is only useful if you can
access the perception in order to make subsequent discriminations.


I agree with the basic idea that perception is something that
influences behavior, but why does the behavior have to be restricted
to comparison and identification?


It doesn't. You can easily do a DBT as, say, a preference test. If the
subject reports the same preference at a statistically significant
rate, we can assume that the two are different.



But at the current level of validation, you can't be sure the test allows
you to actually perceive some of the differences that might factor into a
longer-term preference.


Suppose a listener gives higher
approval ratings to one set of (blind) stimuli than another, without
ever trying to say which stimuli were the same and which were
different. This would be an influence on behavior, but of a weaker
sort than is required by the "can you reliably identify" type of test.


There are cases all the time when people perceive
things and then forget them.

At which point any information they may have gleaned from perceiving
that thing is lost to them. Hence, the distinction between whether they
actually perceived it & then forgot it, or never perceived it in the
first place, is moot.


Not if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive
economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not
specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task.


But it isn't, because of our short aural memory for partial loudness
differences.


This assumes all aural differences are a function of loudness in one form or
another. Some of us feel otherwise and would like to see this underlying
premises actually validated with regard to phase differences, or harmonic
structure differences, or impulse response differences, or frequency
coherence throughout a dynamic volume change. In other words, is it volume,
or is it a more complex brain processing within a high-complex of aural
stimulae.

  #43   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
"Buster Mudd" wrote:

Hence, the distinction between whether they
actually perceived it & then forgot it, or never perceived it in the
first place, is moot.


Not if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive
economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not
specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task.



How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's
"cognitive economy" if that someone was not conscious of that
something? How would you go about *proving* that something was in
someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that
someone to perform a task, any task?
  #47   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OK, is this the idea.

We want to prove that two sources provide the same information to the
listener in the context of ordinary use.

We appeal now to the following Principle:

If two sources provide the same information in ordinary use, then in a
test in which small, corresponding portions are compared, the listener
will not be able to discriminate them.

In particular, the type of discrimination task is the following: on any
trial, two short excerpts are played, either both from the same source
(a repetition) or from different sources, and the listener has to say
if they're from the same or different sources, and he passes the test
if he says same or different better than chance.

Two observations. First of all, in a test like this there is plenty of
information coming from either source that may not make it to the
listener, such as the "temporally extended" properties I have
mentioned. (Maybe that's obvious.) The thing is, the Principle says
that that's OK because those properties have a certain dependence
relation on the, as it were, "atomic" properties that get compared in
such a test. The relation is, no difference in information presented
unless there is a difference in atomic properties. In other words,
information "supervenes" on atomic properties. It does so even if it
does not *consist* exclusively in atomic properties (because, when I
hear the Brahmsian style of a recorded performance, that is not any
property of a short snippet). (To put the Principle better,
information supervenes on *discernible* atomic properties.)

Second, what is key here is the nature of the test. If I am being
asked whether to say A and B are the same or different, that is one
thing. But if I am trying to say which source a given sample is coming
from, where these have been labelled in advance (like SACD or CD), that
is a different task. And the results might not be the same.

Moreover, there might be information of the temporally extended sort
that is available to me when I listen to longer excerpts but which are
not directly picked up in any test. This would include quick-switch
testing as well as comparison of longer excerpts. It would not be
directly picked up in quick-switch testing because I wouldn't hear
long-enough excerpts to perceive the temporally extended property; it
would elude comparison of longer excerpts if the information fails to
be kept in memory in a way that permits long-term comparison. That was
my initial worry. That worry is allayed to some extent by the
existence of "same/different" testing (if that testing is sensitive to
things on which said information supervenes), but my point is that if
the question is "Was that SACD or CD?" then the result is not a valid
test. The failure to get a correct answer better than chance does not
prove anything. It makes a big difference what the task is.

Make sense?

Mark
  #48   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jun 2005 03:05:31 GMT, wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:

... if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive
economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not
specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task.


But it isn't, because of our short aural memory for partial loudness
differences.


Doesn't it follow from what you say that musical form can make no
difference? When I am listening to Theme B, it makes no difference
what the character of Theme A was, what motives made it up, and so on.
If it doesn't follow from what you say, why not?

If this is what psychoacoustics teaches us, I'm moving to Kansas!

Mark


Better order the moving van....Bob didn't warn me and I hit the student
rush! :-)

Seriously, this is what the proponents of quick-switch, comparative testing
*believe* psychoacoustics teaches us. However, as recent experience in this
newsgroup has shown, when they give us a specific reference, which is rare,
it turns out to have much more complex and nuanced information than is
proposed, some of which supports the more complex issues raised here. Then
we are told we can't possibly understand the concepts in these books unless
we devote a full course of study (and preferably a liftetime) to them. Is
this coming from neuropsychologists or neurophysisists or audiologists?
No, it is coming from folks no more or less "literate" in these areas than
ourselves.

Ain't newsgroups wonderful? :-)

  #49   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:

OK now the auditory case. There is a signal that gets louder, and I
can hear the difference between that and a signal of constant loudness.
The principle says that I can do this only if I can hear the
difference in loudness between short corresponding portions.

Seems plausible ... and if the portions get to be too short then would
reliability go down,


No. There is only one point at which the volume of the two passages is
identical, so unless you are listening at exactly that point, and only
that point, the two are going to sound different to you, no matter how
short the samples are. So unless you're extremely unlucky in your
choice of snippets to compare, you'll have no trouble discerning the
difference. And since any good listening test involving musical
passages allows the subject to control the switch, you'll have no
trouble finding other portions of the passage where the differences are
obvious.

Now, you're going to ask, Okay, but what if I'm only given the short
snippet where the levels are the same? In that case, you will hear no
difference. But if that's all you're given, then you can't extrapolate
from that to the remainder of the signal. A listening test is only
valid for what you're listening to.

just as in the visual case?

Does it matter how the short portions are "juxtaposed"? Separated by
silence or one followed continously by the other?


A silence of more than a few seconds (maybe even less) will doom the
test.

bob
  #50   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
OK, is this the idea.

We want to prove that two sources provide the same information to the
listener in the context of ordinary use.

We appeal now to the following Principle:

If two sources provide the same information in ordinary use, then in a
test in which small, corresponding portions are compared, the listener
will not be able to discriminate them.

In particular, the type of discrimination task is the following: on any
trial, two short excerpts are played, either both from the same source
(a repetition) or from different sources, and the listener has to say
if they're from the same or different sources, and he passes the test
if he says same or different better than chance.

Two observations. First of all, in a test like this there is plenty of
information coming from either source that may not make it to the
listener,


No, there isn't. The only information coming to the listener is the
information that's actually coming to the listener. If you're comparing
two short snippets, that's all you're comparing, and you can't
extrapolate from that to anything that isn't part of the test.

Since the subject of this thread is "validity of audio tests," let me
be clear: Listening tests are valid for what you're listening to. They
can't tell you anything about what you're not listening to. So please
give up this sophistry.

bob


  #52   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Jun 2005 00:09:36 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:
"Buster Mudd" wrote:

Hence, the distinction between whether they
actually perceived it & then forgot it, or never perceived it in the
first place, is moot.


Not if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive
economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not
specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task.



How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's
"cognitive economy" if that someone was not conscious of that
something? How would you go about *proving* that something was in
someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that
someone to perform a task, any task?


Excellent question. I would say a statement like that is confirmed if
it is part of the best explanation we have of the data, in other
words, part of the best psychological theory we have. (I use the term
"confirmed," not proved, because confirmation is never final or
certain.) For psychology, the data consists of behavior, as well as
other things that are observed.

Psychologists postulate unconscious representation all the time. You
don't have to be conscious of something in order to have perceived it;
so that is not a necessary criterion.

If you are saying, if a certain hypothesis about somebody's mental
states has no implications whatever for behavior then it has no real
content, I basically agree with that. But I think that to suppose
that someone can perceive something and then not have a memory of it
does not run afoul of that principle, so long as there are *some*
connections with behavior.

Here is an everyday example. Did I say "Unconscious representation is
postulated by psychologists," or "Psychologists postulate unconscious
representation," in the first sentence of the second paragraph above?
You remember that I said something like that but if you are like me
you have to go back and check the formulation to see which exactly it
was. But surely you parsed the sentence when you read it earlier and
had some mental representation of its syntax, though you did not
retain a memory of the exact formulation. (The reasons for thinking
you parsed the sentence are of a general natu you regularly
comprehend what you read; how could that happen if you did not
regularly parse the sentences?) What I am supposing is going on with
music is something along these lines.

Mark

  #53   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I was merely observing that if your point about auditory memory refutes
my claim, as you seem to intend it, then much will follow about the
futility of musical form.

But really, it's OK. I think I answered my own question, along lines I
have reported in other posts. If anyone cares to make a substantive
response to them, to confirm or correct, that will be appreciated.
  #54   Report Post  
Gary Eickmeier
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:

An auditory example would be tempo. Suppose I am listening to two
sources, where the only difference is that one of them has a speed of
1.01 times the other. If I listen to short excerpts any difference is
below the just-noticeable-difference, but if the whole example is the
Ring cycle, I will notice that one finishes before dark and the other
doesn't, I get hungry during one but not the other, etc.

So even if quick-switch tests, on balance, are the most sensitive, that
doesn't mean there can't be things out there that don't get caught in
their net (though they may be detectable in other ways).

To come back to the SACD/CD example, my concern is whether, even if the
quick-switch test were a "null," there could be differences that the
test does not do a good job of proving the existence of. Rather than
feel assured that science tells us there could not be such differences,
it seems to me pretty apparent that every test has its limitations.

Sound plausible?


You can't do a "quick switch" test with two sources that run at
different speeds because you can't synchronize them, which would be a
dead giveaway in itself, so that is a bad example.

If you want to use that example, you will have to listen first to one,
then the other, in its entirety, then decide if the speed difference is
audible. If so, then do a blind series, listening to a known version,
then to a randomly chosen one, and decide whether it is the same or
different. In this manner you will eventually arrive at a number for a
speed differential that is at the audible threshold. That is the basic
idea of how audio research is done. You may find that speed differences
of 1.01 will be inaudible to most, but audible to some with perfect
pitch. If this is interesting enough a question for you, then do the
research and report it.

Gary Eickmeier
  #55   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Mark DeBellis wrote:

OK now the auditory case. There is a signal that gets louder, and I
can hear the difference between that and a signal of constant loudness.
The principle says that I can do this only if I can hear the
difference in loudness between short corresponding portions.

Seems plausible ... and if the portions get to be too short then would
reliability go down,


No. There is only one point at which the volume of the two passages is
identical, so unless you are listening at exactly that point, and only
that point, the two are going to sound different to you, no matter how
short the samples are. So unless you're extremely unlucky in your
choice of snippets to compare, you'll have no trouble discerning the
difference. And since any good listening test involving musical
passages allows the subject to control the switch, you'll have no
trouble finding other portions of the passage where the differences are
obvious.

Now, you're going to ask, Okay, but what if I'm only given the short
snippet where the levels are the same? In that case, you will hear no
difference. But if that's all you're given, then you can't extrapolate
from that to the remainder of the signal. A listening test is only
valid for what you're listening to.


Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in
conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet,
qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and
post-evaluation. That has never been done to verify that such is the case.



  #56   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Jun 2005 03:30:50 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jun 2005 03:05:31 GMT, wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:

... if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive
economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not
specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task.

But it isn't, because of our short aural memory for partial loudness
differences.


Doesn't it follow from what you say that musical form can make no
difference? When I am listening to Theme B, it makes no difference
what the character of Theme A was, what motives made it up, and so on.
If it doesn't follow from what you say, why not?

If this is what psychoacoustics teaches us, I'm moving to Kansas!

Mark


Better order the moving van....Bob didn't warn me and I hit the student
rush! :-)

Seriously, this is what the proponents of quick-switch, comparative testing
*believe* psychoacoustics teaches us. However, as recent experience in this
newsgroup has shown, when they give us a specific reference, which is rare,
it turns out to have much more complex and nuanced information than is
proposed, some of which supports the more complex issues raised here. Then
we are told we can't possibly understand the concepts in these books unless
we devote a full course of study (and preferably a liftetime) to them. Is
this coming from neuropsychologists or neurophysisists or audiologists?
No, it is coming from folks no more or less "literate" in these areas than
ourselves.

Ain't newsgroups wonderful? :-)


Exactamundo. The research may have not been intended to answer
certain questions, so it can't be looked to for definitive answers
about them. And it would be circular to argue that those questions
don't matter because everything that's relevant has already been
treated by science.

But look, whatever anyone thinks of my original question or subsequent
meanderings, I think it is apparent that there is a need to explain
better, to non-experts like me, how audio tests work, in the sense of
what they demonstrate and how they demonstrate it, what their logic
and rationale are, what the structure of the reasoning is that leads
from data to conclusions. I started with what seemed to me a prima
facie problem about the SACD/CD test I undertook. It seemed to me
there was a reason to think that the outcome of that particular test
fails to demonstrate that there is no difference between what I hear
in SACD and what I hear in CD (and hence that there is no sonic
advantage to SACD). If someone wants to tell me that the test does
demonstrate that, then I would be interested to know why what I think
is a reason, an obstacle, is not in fact a good reason. My own
assessment of this is that I performed the wrong kind of test, and
this is worth pointing out because it is very easy to assume that the
test does demonstrate said conclusion, since it is very easy not to
notice the difference between that test and other, better tests.
There is an initial plausibility to the idea that the failure to
identify SACD vs. CD means that one can't sound better than the other.
But I think that plausibility is illusory and betrays a lack of
clarity, from which I was certainly not myself immune, about what the
test really demonstrates and why.

Mark
  #57   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
Mark DeBellis wrote:

OK now the auditory case. There is a signal that gets louder, and I
can hear the difference between that and a signal of constant loudness.
The principle says that I can do this only if I can hear the
difference in loudness between short corresponding portions.

Seems plausible ... and if the portions get to be too short then would
reliability go down,


No. There is only one point at which the volume of the two passages is
identical, so unless you are listening at exactly that point, and only
that point, the two are going to sound different to you, no matter how
short the samples are. So unless you're extremely unlucky in your
choice of snippets to compare, you'll have no trouble discerning the
difference. And since any good listening test involving musical
passages allows the subject to control the switch, you'll have no
trouble finding other portions of the passage where the differences are
obvious.

Now, you're going to ask, Okay, but what if I'm only given the short
snippet where the levels are the same? In that case, you will hear no
difference. But if that's all you're given, then you can't extrapolate
from that to the remainder of the signal. A listening test is only
valid for what you're listening to.


Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in
conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet,
qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and
post-evaluation.


It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be
absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the
brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time
intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently.
But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time
distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them
increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary.

bob
  #58   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
Exactamundo. The research may have not been intended to answer
certain questions, so it can't be looked to for definitive answers
about them.


But the research was intended to answer exactly the questions you are
asking. If you want to know how to determine whether two things sound
different, there are certain tests that are known to be reliable for
doing this. The only reason you are arguing this is that you don't like
what those tests tell you. I'm sorry we can't rearrange the laws of the
physical universe to your wishes, but we can't.

And it would be circular to argue that those questions
don't matter because everything that's relevant has already been
treated by science.

But look, whatever anyone thinks of my original question or subsequent
meanderings, I think it is apparent that there is a need to explain
better, to non-experts like me, how audio tests work, in the sense of
what they demonstrate and how they demonstrate it, what their logic
and rationale are, what the structure of the reasoning is that leads
from data to conclusions.


You can't understand any of this unless you have a decent grasp of the
basics of psychoacoustics and the physics of sound, which your recent
posts indicate that you do not have. So the very first thing you should
do is pick up a textbook or two actually read the things. Then you'll
be able to pose informed questions, instead of throwing up uninformed
speculation.

I started with what seemed to me a prima
facie problem about the SACD/CD test I undertook.


Yeah, it didn't give you the result you wanted.

It seemed to me
there was a reason to think that the outcome of that particular test
fails to demonstrate that there is no difference between what I hear
in SACD and what I hear in CD (and hence that there is no sonic
advantage to SACD).


NO test can demonstrate that there is no difference. Any such test has
one of two possible outcomes:
1) it can demonstrate that there IS a difference;
2) it can fail to determine whether there is or is not a difference.

Of course, if you keep getting result #2, that should tell you
something.

(This, by the way, is another very basic concept which you have not yet
grasped. I don't point this out to belittle you, but to indicate
further that your lack of background knowledge is hindering your
ability to understand what people are saying to you. So please take my
advice and read up a little.)

If someone wants to tell me that the test does
demonstrate that, then I would be interested to know why what I think
is a reason, an obstacle, is not in fact a good reason.


I believe several people explained why your reasoning was faulty.
Rather than engage them, you've simply persisted in posting the same
question over and over again.

My own
assessment of this is that I performed the wrong kind of test, and
this is worth pointing out because it is very easy to assume that the
test does demonstrate said conclusion, since it is very easy not to
notice the difference between that test and other, better tests.
There is an initial plausibility to the idea that the failure to
identify SACD vs. CD means that one can't sound better than the other.
But I think that plausibility is illusory and betrays a lack of
clarity, from which I was certainly not myself immune, about what the
test really demonstrates and why.


The lack of clarity is entirely yours. I've suggested a remedy.

bob
  #59   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Mark DeBellis wrote:

OK now the auditory case. There is a signal that gets louder, and I
can hear the difference between that and a signal of constant
loudness.
The principle says that I can do this only if I can hear the
difference in loudness between short corresponding portions.

Seems plausible ... and if the portions get to be too short then would
reliability go down,

No. There is only one point at which the volume of the two passages is
identical, so unless you are listening at exactly that point, and only
that point, the two are going to sound different to you, no matter how
short the samples are. So unless you're extremely unlucky in your
choice of snippets to compare, you'll have no trouble discerning the
difference. And since any good listening test involving musical
passages allows the subject to control the switch, you'll have no
trouble finding other portions of the passage where the differences are
obvious.

Now, you're going to ask, Okay, but what if I'm only given the short
snippet where the levels are the same? In that case, you will hear no
difference. But if that's all you're given, then you can't extrapolate
from that to the remainder of the signal. A listening test is only
valid for what you're listening to.


Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in
conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet,
qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and
post-evaluation.


It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be
absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the
brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time
intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently.
But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time
distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them
increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary.


Sure it presumes exactly what I mentioned. You are presuming that if
something "disappears" when the time interval is lengthened, then it is not
important. You have no evidence for this whatsoever unless you can show
that the results of the short snippet, quick-switch test give the same
results as a longer-term, monadic, cross-population, post-listening-analysis
test. Such a test does not rely on one person's aural memory; instead it
measures response to the full longer term set of stimulae across the
population, and uses statistics to determine signifcant difference or lack
of same. Yet this test more closely duplicates the actual listening
conditions under which people use the equipment and listen to the music. If
the quick-switch, snippet test duplicates the results within reason, then
fine, you've got a winner. But if it doesn't, then the basic assumption
that the test is valid for the open-ended evaluation of musical reproduction
has been an error, and the testing is worthless for this purpose.

  #60   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 23 Jun 2005 00:09:36 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:
"Buster Mudd" wrote:

Hence, the distinction between whether they
actually perceived it & then forgot it, or never perceived it in the
first place, is moot.

Not if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive
economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not
specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task.



How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's
"cognitive economy" if that someone was not conscious of that
something? How would you go about *proving* that something was in
someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that
someone to perform a task, any task?


Excellent question. I would say a statement like that is confirmed if
it is part of the best explanation we have of the data, in other
words, part of the best psychological theory we have.



But that sounds suspiciously like "Philosopher's Syndrome": mistaking a
failure of imagination for an insight into necessity. I'm under the
impression that no self-respecting scientist would ever claim they'd
"confirmed" anything if it is simply the best explanation they have of
the data. All they've done is "postulated" a theory or "presumed" a
solution, which they would then seek to "confirm" via reproduceable
experiment.



For psychology, the data consists of behavior, as well as
other things that are observed.

Psychologists postulate unconscious representation all the time. You
don't have to be conscious of something in order to have perceived it;
so that is not a necessary criterion.


But in order for a psychologist to postulate unconscious representation
they need to observe something in a subject's behavior that suggests
that Perceived-But-Not-Brought-To-Consciousness thing *was* affecting
the subject's cognitive economy. This gets right back to my previous
question: How would you go about *proving* (confirming? demonstrating?)
that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that something
could not enable that someone to perform a task? Relying on the "it
happens all the time so why shouldn't it be happening now" school of
philosophy is extremely suspect.


  #61   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark, I've noticed a few of your posts in this thread have been
attempting to discuss auditory memory as it applies to musical themes,
motifs, and forms...whereas most of the other folks here have been
responding as if the discussion were about auditory memory as it
applies to identifying sonic differences between audio components.

Intuitively (for whatever *that's* worth!) it strikes me that there's a
fundamental difference between these two types of auditory memories
that may explain the obstacles to understanding one another:

There is a certain amount of "content" in a musical composition that is
objectively verifiable: e.g., Theme B is an inversion of Theme A, or,
this passage is in the relative minor key of the opening statement,
etc. These types of information can be easily confirmed by anyone with
a copy of the score. And these are examples of the sort of content that
can most definitely be percieved subconciously but have an affect on
one's subsequent perception of a musical passage. I don't think anyone
would disagree that this type of auditory memory exists; it's the
entire basis upon which Western Art Music was founded!

But the whole point of performing a valid audio test to determine
whether or not there exists a difference between two audio components
is to find out if there *is* any objectively verifiable "content".
We're not asking whether or not the subject has retained a memory
(conciously or otherwise) of This Thing; we're performing these tests
to first determine whether or not This Thing even exists.
  #62   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Mark DeBellis wrote:


snip




I started with what seemed to me a prima
facie problem about the SACD/CD test I undertook.


Yeah, it didn't give you the result you wanted.

It seemed to me
there was a reason to think that the outcome of that particular test
fails to demonstrate that there is no difference between what I hear
in SACD and what I hear in CD (and hence that there is no sonic
advantage to SACD).


NO test can demonstrate that there is no difference. Any such test has
one of two possible outcomes:
1) it can demonstrate that there IS a difference;
2) it can fail to determine whether there is or is not a difference.

Of course, if you keep getting result #2, that should tell you
something.



Yes, either the test is wrong or you need more trials. :-)

snip


  #63   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in
conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet,
qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and
post-evaluation.


It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be
absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the
brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time
intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently.
But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time
distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them
increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary.


Sure it presumes exactly what I mentioned. You are presuming that if
something "disappears" when the time interval is lengthened, then it is not
important.


Not only am I not presuming this, but I have never said that *anything*
disappears. Must you misrepresent what I say in order to argue with me?

You have no evidence for this whatsoever unless you can show
that the results of the short snippet, quick-switch test give the same
results as a longer-term, monadic, cross-population, post-listening-analysis
test.


Why in the world should I have to show that a listening test commonly
used by the leading experts in the field gives the same results as one
that has never, ever been used to test whether two sounds are audibly
different? That's preposterous. It seems to me that the burden of proof
rests with you. Show us that your "test" even works at all.

Such a test does not rely on one person's aural memory;


Of course it does. You listen to a sample. Then you answer a few
questions about your impressions of that sample. How do you remember
what your impressions were? That's aural memory, Harry. And it works
the same in your "test" as in the real ones.

bob
  #64   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in
conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet,
qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and
post-evaluation.

It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be
absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the
brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time
intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently.
But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time
distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them
increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary.


Sure it presumes exactly what I mentioned. You are presuming that if
something "disappears" when the time interval is lengthened, then it is
not
important.


Not only am I not presuming this, but I have never said that *anything*
disappears. Must you misrepresent what I say in order to argue with me?


I'm sorry, but the entire gist of your response has been to this effect.
Othes here can judge your disclaimer for themselves.

You have no evidence for this whatsoever unless you can show
that the results of the short snippet, quick-switch test give the same
results as a longer-term, monadic, cross-population,
post-listening-analysis
test.


Why in the world should I have to show that a listening test commonly
used by the leading experts in the field gives the same results as one
that has never, ever been used to test whether two sounds are audibly
different? That's preposterous. It seems to me that the burden of proof
rests with you. Show us that your "test" even works at all.


My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many
fields. The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the
information Harmon Kardon's current use of it. It is much less
controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of
normal listening patterns. The only thing one might fault it for is
sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of
numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people.

Such a test does not rely on one person's aural memory;


Of course it does. You listen to a sample. Then you answer a few
questions about your impressions of that sample. How do you remember
what your impressions were? That's aural memory, Harry. And it works
the same in your "test" as in the real ones.


That is not aural memory, in the sense that you need it in an ABX test.
That is a recall of total impression, involving the brain and the emotions.
And that kind of memory is *very* recallable. It is also subjective. But
that is how we respond to and understand music (and musical reproduction).
It is objectified via the use of statistics. You don't object to that use,
do you?

  #65   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many
fields.


But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible
test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time
for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change
that.

The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the
information Harmon Kardon's current use of it.


Not for difference.

It is much less
controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of
normal listening patterns.


ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is
science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so.

The only thing one might fault it for is
sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of
numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people.


As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity
problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP
and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the
gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests?

bob


  #66   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in
many
fields.


But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible
test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time
for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change
that.


Absolutely it is used to test difference. If it doesn't measure
statistically significant, the difference hypothesis is not supported. Try
telling a drug company it doesn't measure difference from a placebo!

One of its strengths is that it goes beyond difference to get at where and
how and why there is a difference. But only if there is a statistical
difference.

The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the
information Harmon Kardon's current use of it.


Not for difference.


Of course for difference. They are profiling speakers against the profile
of know reference speakers. If there is no statistical difference, any
differences in profile are useless (in a scientific sense). Of course, the
Harmon people may set a lower statistical standard for such testing because
they find even directional information helpful. But that is always a
standard development dilemma.

It is much less
controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of
normal listening patterns.


ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is
science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so.


Once again, name calling, however subtle in nature. I am not anti-science.
I am against bad science parading as good science.


The only thing one might fault it for is
sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of
numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people.


As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity
problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP
and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the
gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests?


Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical
impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a
difference?

  #67   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 24 Jun 2005 01:09:45 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

You can't do a "quick switch" test with two sources that run at
different speeds because you can't synchronize them, which would be a
dead giveaway in itself, so that is a bad example.


I don't see why it would be impossible to synchronize them if they are
both files on your computer and there is a program that, when you
switch back and forth, points you to the right place in the other
file.

If on the other hand playback is continuous for either source and it
has to be started once and for all, then, yes, it would be impossible
to synchronize them.


If you want to use that example, you will have to listen first to one,
then the other, in its entirety, then decide if the speed difference is
audible. If so, then do a blind series, listening to a known version,
then to a randomly chosen one, and decide whether it is the same or
different. In this manner you will eventually arrive at a number for a
speed differential that is at the audible threshold. That is the basic
idea of how audio research is done. You may find that speed differences
of 1.01 will be inaudible to most, but audible to some with perfect
pitch. If this is interesting enough a question for you, then do the
research and report it.


Thanks, that is a helpful explanation. But I am not an audio
researcher, just someone who is trying to understand what the research
and the debates are about.

Mark
  #68   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 25 Jun 2005 02:28:36 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 23 Jun 2005 00:09:36 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote:
How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's
"cognitive economy" if that someone was not conscious of that
something? How would you go about *proving* that something was in
someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that
someone to perform a task, any task?


Excellent question. I would say a statement like that is confirmed if
it is part of the best explanation we have of the data, in other
words, part of the best psychological theory we have.



But that sounds suspiciously like "Philosopher's Syndrome": mistaking a
failure of imagination for an insight into necessity. I'm under the
impression that no self-respecting scientist would ever claim they'd
"confirmed" anything if it is simply the best explanation they have of
the data. All they've done is "postulated" a theory or "presumed" a
solution, which they would then seek to "confirm" via reproduceable
experiment.


I don't think we basically disagree, though maybe our terminology is
different. A theory's having the status of being the best explanation
is not prior to experiment. The data include the results of
experiments. And confirmation is always provisional, always open to
revision by further observations. (In addition to the excellent book
you have mentioned already, I would add to the mix The Logic of
Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper, which is relevant to these
particular points.)


For psychology, the data consists of behavior, as well as
other things that are observed.

Psychologists postulate unconscious representation all the time. You
don't have to be conscious of something in order to have perceived it;
so that is not a necessary criterion.


But in order for a psychologist to postulate unconscious representation
they need to observe something in a subject's behavior that suggests
that Perceived-But-Not-Brought-To-Consciousness thing *was* affecting
the subject's cognitive economy. This gets right back to my previous
question: How would you go about *proving* (confirming? demonstrating?)
that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that something
could not enable that someone to perform a task?


Well, just as you say, by observing behavior that, together with
everything else that is observed, is best explained by that
hypothesis, in the context of a larger theory.

If by a "task" you mean a behavior that constitutes a "crucial
experiment"--if we see the behavior then we have conclusively proved
the hypothesis, and if we do not then we have conclusively refuted
it--then I think normally there isn't any such thing. A theory in
psychology, like any theory, "faces the tribunal of experience" as a
whole, not statement by statement (Quine, Duhem). Confirmation in
science is holistic.

Mark
  #69   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 25 Jun 2005 02:29:34 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote:

Mark, I've noticed a few of your posts in this thread have been
attempting to discuss auditory memory as it applies to musical themes,
motifs, and forms...whereas most of the other folks here have been
responding as if the discussion were about auditory memory as it
applies to identifying sonic differences between audio components.

Intuitively (for whatever *that's* worth!) it strikes me that there's a
fundamental difference between these two types of auditory memories
that may explain the obstacles to understanding one another:

There is a certain amount of "content" in a musical composition that is
objectively verifiable: e.g., Theme B is an inversion of Theme A, or,
this passage is in the relative minor key of the opening statement,
etc. These types of information can be easily confirmed by anyone with
a copy of the score. And these are examples of the sort of content that
can most definitely be percieved subconciously but have an affect on
one's subsequent perception of a musical passage. I don't think anyone
would disagree that this type of auditory memory exists; it's the
entire basis upon which Western Art Music was founded!

But the whole point of performing a valid audio test to determine
whether or not there exists a difference between two audio components
is to find out if there *is* any objectively verifiable "content".
We're not asking whether or not the subject has retained a memory
(conciously or otherwise) of This Thing; we're performing these tests
to first determine whether or not This Thing even exists.


Hi Buster, that's interesting. What do you think the relation is
between these two types of auditory memory? I am not sure whether to
read you as saying that the things being verified by audio tests are
the same things you refer to in the previous paragraph (musical
"content") or different kinds of things.

Mark
  #70   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The question that interests me now is whether the implications of an
identification ("Was that SACD or CD?") test need be the same as those
of a discrimination ("Are A and B the same or different?") test. Does
the research show, in particular, that an identification test (the
kind I undertook) is among the kinds of tests that are reliable for
determining whether two sources sound different?

Mark


  #71   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in
many
fields.


But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible
test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time
for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change
that.


Absolutely it is used to test difference. If it doesn't measure
statistically significant, the difference hypothesis is not supported. Try
telling a drug company it doesn't measure difference from a placebo!


One of its strengths is that it goes beyond difference to get at where and
how and why there is a difference. But only if there is a statistical
difference.


The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the
information Harmon Kardon's current use of it.


Not for difference.


Of course for difference. They are profiling speakers against the profile
of know reference speakers. If there is no statistical difference, any
differences in profile are useless (in a scientific sense). Of course, the
Harmon people may set a lower statistical standard for such testing because
they find even directional information helpful. But that is always a
standard development dilemma.


It is much less
controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of
normal listening patterns.


ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is
science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so.


Once again, name calling, however subtle in nature. I am not anti-science.
I am against bad science parading as good science.



The only thing one might fault it for is
sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of
numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people.


As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity
problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP
and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the
gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests?


Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical
impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a
difference?


Your continued insistance that 'loudness' and 'partial loudness' are the same
(because you apparently continue to refuse to study and therefore understand
the subject) really does not do your 'cause' any good whatsoever. If you want
to debunk a theory, you need to know what the theory is. You don't.
  #72   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in
many
fields.


But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible
test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time
for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change
that.


Absolutely it is used to test difference. If it doesn't measure
statistically significant, the difference hypothesis is not supported. Try
telling a drug company it doesn't measure difference from a placebo!


Drug companies aren't measuring difference. They're measuring
effectiveness. Does this antibiotic cure infections? Does this cancer
drug reduce the size of tumors? Measuring difference would be: Does
this drug have any physiological effect on the body whatsoever?

And, no, you cannot use a drug test as a difference test, because you
cannot presume that a drug that fails to cure an infection therefore
had no physiological effect.

BTW, now you're talking about monadic tests. Previously, you've touted
what you called "proto-monadic" tests, a la Oohashi. Which is it,
Harry? You say we need a reference against which to compare ABX's
results, but you can't even agree within your own mind about what that
test should be.

One of its strengths is that it goes beyond difference to get at where and
how and why there is a difference. But only if there is a statistical
difference.

The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the
information Harmon Kardon's current use of it.


Not for difference.


Of course for difference.


Oh, this is rich. Now you're touting Harman as the model of your
monadic ideal. Harman doesn't use monadic tests. They use
QUICK-SWITCHING preference tests (not difference tests!). That's why
they built their listening lab, Harry--so they could do quick-switching
tests with speakers. I presume you're now going to tell us that their
findings aren't validated.

They are profiling speakers against the profile
of know reference speakers. If there is no statistical difference, any
differences in profile are useless (in a scientific sense). Of course, the
Harmon people may set a lower statistical standard for such testing because
they find even directional information helpful. But that is always a
standard development dilemma.

It is much less
controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of
normal listening patterns.


ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is
science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so.


Once again, name calling, however subtle in nature. I am not anti-science.
I am against bad science parading as good science.


Hey, you're the one who started with the religious insults. And anyone
who professes the authority to "validate" science by ignoring the parts
he just doesn't like is anti-science, in my book.

The only thing one might fault it for is
sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of
numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people.


As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity
problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP
and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the
gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests?


Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical
impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a
difference?


Yeah, and that's why ABX is better. ABX doesn't JUST test for "musical
impression," it tests for any difference at all. And you can't identify
a single audible sonic difference that ABX tests can't distinguish.

As for your own "proposed" test, which is it:
1) monadic, like the pharmaceutical companies?
2) proto-monadic, like Oohashi?
3) quick-switching preference, like Harman?

Or does it depend?

Actually, it doesn't. None of those three tests could be used to
confirm an audible difference between LP and CD. An ABX test could do
so easily. So much for validation.

bob
  #73   Report Post  
vlad
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry,

It was few weeks ago when you described your "monadic" test first time
in this group. Now you are talking about this test as an established
fact.

Even if somebody would go into a hassle and an expense of
implementing your suggestion it is not at all obvious that the test
would produce any results. I think that most likely outcome that it
would find your subjective terms like "warmth", "depth", etc. not
correlated to the sound of the recording. I would bet that the
distribution of particular term would be completely random for
different users.

But of course then you would require not 200 participants but 2000,
etc. or something that again will make a proposed test unfeasible. And
you will continue speculate about validity of your imaginary test.

Please, either provide some proof that you so-called "monadic" test
works or stop speculating about it.

vlad

Harry Lavo wrote:


Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical
impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a
difference?

  #76   Report Post  
Gary Eickmeier
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
The question that interests me now is whether the implications of an
identification ("Was that SACD or CD?") test need be the same as those
of a discrimination ("Are A and B the same or different?") test. Does
the research show, in particular, that an identification test (the
kind I undertook) is among the kinds of tests that are reliable for
determining whether two sources sound different?


I'm not sure what you mean by "identification test." There is no such
paradigm in what I have read. It is much more difficult to listen to a
randomly selected source and try to "identify" it than to compare two
sources and decide "same" or "different." In an ABX test, for example,
you can listen to the two known sources as long as you want, switch back
and forth between them and listen for differences, see if you can get a
"fix" on just what each sounds like, then go for a test. In the test,
you would select A or B, then let the comparator select X, and decide
whether X is A or B. You usually do this by quick switching between A
and X, then B and X, and deciding same or different. If X is same as A,
then you put A as the identification of it, and press on to trial 2.

If the differences are really audible, the trials will be child's play.
If they sound identical, you will be guessing and probably know it.

Anyway, the task is to decide same or different, not to identify the
source when presented with a single signal.

Gary Eickmeier
  #77   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 24 Jun 2005 01:09:45 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
wrote:


You can't do a "quick switch" test with two sources that run at
different speeds because you can't synchronize them, which would be a
dead giveaway in itself, so that is a bad example.

If you want to use that example, you will have to listen first to one,
then the other, in its entirety, then decide if the speed difference is
audible. If so, then do a blind series, listening to a known version,
then to a randomly chosen one, and decide whether it is the same or
different. In this manner you will eventually arrive at a number for a
speed differential that is at the audible threshold. That is the basic
idea of how audio research is done. You may find that speed differences
of 1.01 will be inaudible to most, but audible to some with perfect
pitch. If this is interesting enough a question for you, then do the
research and report it.


p.s. Suppose one carried out research such as this and found, for a
given one-minute-long excerpt, what is the audible threshold. So a
given subject could reliably discriminate between the excerpt and a
version that is 1.01 as fast (say). What theoretical reason would we
have to think that, if we did a quick switch test (see my previous
email for a suggestion about how to do it), the subject would be able
to tell the excerpts apart in that test?

I don't understand the point about perfect pitch, because I am
supposing that one version is faster than the other, not that the
speed and pitch are both higher (as would be the case with analog
tape). Maybe I am not seeing your point though.

Mark
  #78   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world
in
many
fields.

But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible
test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time
for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change
that.


Absolutely it is used to test difference. If it doesn't measure
statistically significant, the difference hypothesis is not supported.
Try
telling a drug company it doesn't measure difference from a placebo!


Drug companies aren't measuring difference. They're measuring
effectiveness. Does this antibiotic cure infections? Does this cancer
drug reduce the size of tumors? Measuring difference would be: Does
this drug have any physiological effect on the body whatsoever?


And how do they measure effectiveness. By the *difference* in physical
phenomenon, and by the *difference* in self-reported behavior, that's how.
When the drug company says this drug reduces the risk of heart attack by
25%, it has found a statistically significant difference between the samples
of a magnitude of at least 25%. Likewise, if 200 people rate amp "A" as a
4.0 on a five-point scale with regard to naturalness in reproducing violins,
and another 200 people rate amp "B" as a 4.3 on this same scale, and the
statistical test for difference indicates that this is statistically
significant at some level (usually 95%), then it can be said that Amp "B"
has a more natural violin sound than Amp "A". The statistical test used is
specific to the scalar technology used.

There is no real difference between the drug comapny tests and the musical
tests, except that the drug tests have objective incidences to meaure (as
well, often, as subjective) whereas the music reproduction test is clearly
all subjective. But that is a result of the fact that music itself is
subjective, and *cannot* be measured objectively. The closest you can come
perhaps is to substitute some kind of psychophysiological measurements.


And, no, you cannot use a drug test as a difference test, because you
cannot presume that a drug that fails to cure an infection therefore
had no physiological effect.


Sure you can. If the drug and the placebo (or the control drug) yield the
same incidence of effective cure, there is no difference. The drug doesn't
work (placebo) or at least work any better (control drug). Simple as that.


BTW, now you're talking about monadic tests. Previously, you've touted
what you called "proto-monadic" tests, a la Oohashi. Which is it,
Harry? You say we need a reference against which to compare ABX's
results, but you can't even agree within your own mind about what that
test should be.


Monadic tests are the gold standard because their is no test order bias, but
they require the largest sample size and are those fairly impractical except
for deep-pocketed, major studies. Proto monadic *is* a monadic test, with a
*comparative* tagged directly on the end. Thus one can often get by with
smaller sample sizes because there is yet a second measure of difference.
At least some researchers favor it for this reason under some circumstances.
On the other hand, proto-monadic testing has a strong order bias that has
to be controlled. It's a judgement call, but either are preferable to
quick-switch, comparative testing IMO because they intrude less into normal
listening patterns. Both rely on after-the-fact recall and rating.

One of its strengths is that it goes beyond difference to get at where and
how and why there is a difference. But only if there is a statistical
difference.

The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the
information Harmon Kardon's current use of it.

Not for difference.


Of course for difference.


Oh, this is rich. Now you're touting Harman as the model of your
monadic ideal. Harman doesn't use monadic tests. They use
QUICK-SWITCHING preference tests (not difference tests!). That's why
they built their listening lab, Harry--so they could do quick-switching
tests with speakers. I presume you're now going to tell us that their
findings aren't validated.


Did you miss John Atkinson's recent posts that upon his recent visit to
Harmon's research facitility, they had switched their speaker testing to
monadic, evaluative testing using rating scales? I'm not holding them up
as a model for anything, simply commenting that they are at least one
company using monadic testing in the audio field. Which refutes your claim
that none are.


They are profiling speakers against the profile
of know reference speakers. If there is no statistical difference, any
differences in profile are useless (in a scientific sense). Of course,
the
Harmon people may set a lower statistical standard for such testing
because
they find even directional information helpful. But that is always a
standard development dilemma.

It is much less
controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of
normal listening patterns.

ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is
science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so.


Once again, name calling, however subtle in nature. I am not
anti-science.
I am against bad science parading as good science.


Hey, you're the one who started with the religious insults. And anyone
who professes the authority to "validate" science by ignoring the parts
he just doesn't like is anti-science, in my book.


Religous insults? You mean when I point out that an unwillingness to
consider the underlying premises of the ABX test turns promotion of such a
test (without validation) into a profession akin to religion? As opposed to
true science? If that's your claim, I stand convicted.


The only thing one might fault it for is
sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter
of
numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people.

As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity
problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP
and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the
gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests?


Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical
impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a
difference?


Yeah, and that's why ABX is better. ABX doesn't JUST test for "musical
impression," it tests for any difference at all. And you can't identify
a single audible sonic difference that ABX tests can't distinguish.


How would you know that? A proper control test has never been done.


As for your own "proposed" test, which is it:
1) monadic, like the pharmaceutical companies?
2) proto-monadic, like Oohashi?
3) quick-switching preference, like Harman?

Or does it depend?


I can't answer because your list is erroneous. I've answered the 1) vs. 2)
above. And 3) simply indicates you missed out on, failed to notice, or for
some reason dismissed John's reporting.


Actually, it doesn't. None of those three tests could be used to
confirm an audible difference between LP and CD. An ABX test could do
so easily. So much for validation.


We aren't looking to determine differences, Bob. We're looking to evaluate
audio components sonic signatures and subjective shading of musical
reproduction. And there has been no confimation that ABX or a straight AB
difference test can show up all the various shadings that show up in
longer-term listening evaluations.

  #79   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"vlad" wrote in message
...
Harry,

It was few weeks ago when you described your "monadic" test first time
in this group. Now you are talking about this test as an established
fact.

Even if somebody would go into a hassle and an expense of
implementing your suggestion it is not at all obvious that the test
would produce any results. I think that most likely outcome that it
would find your subjective terms like "warmth", "depth", etc. not
correlated to the sound of the recording. I would bet that the
distribution of particular term would be completely random for
different users.

But of course then you would require not 200 participants but 2000,
etc. or something that again will make a proposed test unfeasible. And
you will continue speculate about validity of your imaginary test.

Please, either provide some proof that you so-called "monadic" test
works or stop speculating about it.

vlad


Well, I guess I can understand why you feel that way. But fact is, Vlad, I
postulated such a test as a key part (the "control" part) of a validation
test here nearly two years ago. I let the matter drop after much
controvery, and only recently brought it up again (in another forum, but it
has spilled over here). I also realized that perhaps understanding of what
I was proposing was buried in the complexity of the overall testing needed
to validate quick-switch testing, so I have tried to make my explainations
as simple as possible.

The reason I say it is a standard test is that it is widely used in the
social sciences, psychological and behavioral sciences, and in the medical
sciences. Audio is a field where it has not traditionally been used, at
least to my knowledge. Partly this may be structural (there are not a lot
of large companies worried about the quality of musical reprodcution, after
all). But more likely it is because the field has been dominated by sound
research conducted by physisists, electircal engineers, and audiologists.
However, more recently scientists have made rapid progress in brain research
with the growing realization that how we hear is very complex, and how we
hear music even more so. There is growing realization that musical
evaluation must be treated as a subjective phenomenon, and that means
treating its measurement using the tools of the social and psychological
scientists, and the medical scientists, not necessarily the physical
scientists.

As difficult as you may find it to believe that ratings of things like
"warmth" or "depth" or "dimensional" have meaning, those kinds of subjective
yet descriptive phrases are widely used in subjective research. Of course,
part of the art of researchers in a given field is determining the best,
most precise, way of asking the question to minimize confusion. You don't
want to say "on a scale of one to five, rate this item on "warmth"". You
doubtless would construct a scale that said " on a scale of one to five,
where 'one' is a relatively cool tone, and 'five' is a relatively warm tone,
where would you place the sound you just heard?". Or something to that
effect.

Part of the research art is developing, and oft-times pretesting, the
questions so that you know they are meaningful and with minimum
misinterpretation. This is all practical "art", and there are commercial
researchers who are quite good at it.

  #80   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 25 Jun 2005 02:29:34 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote:

Mark, I've noticed a few of your posts in this thread have been
attempting to discuss auditory memory as it applies to musical themes,
motifs, and forms...whereas most of the other folks here have been
responding as if the discussion were about auditory memory as it
applies to identifying sonic differences between audio components.

Intuitively (for whatever *that's* worth!) it strikes me that there's a
fundamental difference between these two types of auditory memories
that may explain the obstacles to understanding one another:

There is a certain amount of "content" in a musical composition that is
objectively verifiable: e.g., Theme B is an inversion of Theme A, or,
this passage is in the relative minor key of the opening statement,
etc. These types of information can be easily confirmed by anyone with
a copy of the score. And these are examples of the sort of content that
can most definitely be percieved subconciously but have an affect on
one's subsequent perception of a musical passage. I don't think anyone
would disagree that this type of auditory memory exists; it's the
entire basis upon which Western Art Music was founded!

But the whole point of performing a valid audio test to determine
whether or not there exists a difference between two audio components
is to find out if there *is* any objectively verifiable "content".
We're not asking whether or not the subject has retained a memory
(conciously or otherwise) of This Thing; we're performing these tests
to first determine whether or not This Thing even exists.


Hi Buster, that's interesting. What do you think the relation is
between these two types of auditory memory? I am not sure whether to
read you as saying that the things being verified by audio tests are
the same things you refer to in the previous paragraph (musical
"content") or different kinds of things.



Definitely two different kind of things, hence the reason for my post
in the first place!

Musical content (of the sort I described) is undeniably "there"; an
auditory memory test might be able to discern whether or not a subject
was concious of prior content while hearing a subsequent passage, but
there's no question that this sort of content exists, and is inherent
in the music. Plus I would think you could make a pretty good arguement
that regardless of whether or not the subject was concious of having
heard this content, that content had an undeniable affect on the
subject's perception of later music.

Contrast that with discernible sonic differences between audio
components: A valid test would have to first determine whether or not
differences (the "content" in this case) even exist before one can move
on to wondering about whether or not auditory memory (concious or not)
of such things affects subsequent listening.

So I think the "relation...between these two types of auditory memory"
is that one *is* a type of audio memory, and the other *might be* --
or, possibly might not be -- a type of audio memory.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk xy Pro Audio 385 December 29th 04 01:00 AM
Topic Police Steve Jorgensen Pro Audio 85 July 9th 04 11:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:03 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"