[[email protected]]

In an older thread about the Meyer/Moran study relating to the
audibility of "bottlenecking" the output of SACD through the A/D/A
section of a CD-recorder, the need of calibration was mentioned:

"Your results weren't calibrated, because you didn't come up with any
measurement of the differences that your experimental setup could
actually detect with your chosen source material and test subjects.
This could have been done by generating test material with known
degradations and determining which of these were audible. In other
words, by generating positive differences that could be detected, not
negative differences which could not be detected."

The same author in a current thread said:

"The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the source
material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution and suitability to
detect the effects being evaluated".

My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result?

Klaus

[bob]

On Jun 18, 10:07=A0am, wrote:

My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result?

Pseudo-scientific rationalization often relies on the casual use of
scientific terms to make an argument sound more authoritative than it
is. This is no exception. Clearly, a lack of "calibration" did not
unduly concern the actual scientists who served as peer reviewers for
the M&M article.

Objective listening tests have been used thousands of times to
demonstrate audible differences. The results quite reliably correlate
with other methods of determining hearing thresholds. M&M's results
were no exception. (And, it should be noted, not all of their results
were negative: At higher volume levels, the lower noise floor of hi-
res digital was audible in their tests.)

Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct
a study that produces a different result.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:51:44 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 18, 10:07=A0am, wrote:

My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result?

Pseudo-scientific rationalization often relies on the casual use of
scientific terms to make an argument sound more authoritative than it
is. This is no exception. Clearly, a lack of "calibration" did not
unduly concern the actual scientists who served as peer reviewers for
the M&M article.

Objective listening tests have been used thousands of times to
demonstrate audible differences. The results quite reliably correlate
with other methods of determining hearing thresholds. M&M's results
were no exception. (And, it should be noted, not all of their results
were negative: At higher volume levels, the lower noise floor of hi-
res digital was audible in their tests.)

Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct
a study that produces a different result.

bob


AFAICS, the only "calibration" needed is for levels between
components-under-test to be as closely matched as possible. Loudness
differences will always mask any real differences heard between components
(and in fact will generate differences where none really exist). Also, it
seems to be a characteristic of human audio perception that the louder of two
components under test will always be deemed to sound "better" than the less
loud component. If this is what is meant here by "calibration", then yes, it
is VERY necessary. I would think that anything else would be difficult to
achieve and superfluous - especially if all one was trying to accomplish is
ascertain if two components of the same type (DAC, CD Player, record deck,
Pre-amp, amplifier, tuner, etc) sound 'different".

[[email protected]]

My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result?

If one wanted to establish what threshold of any difference in gear can be
heard then it would be required. If testing to see if for any particular
bit of gear difference can be heard it doesn't. Whatever the threshold if
no difference is detected then it is below the perception threshhold and
that is the point of the test.

When time after time controled listening alone tests fail to support
subjective claims, one of the obvious responses is to question some aspect
of the test instead of the even more obvious inherent problems of
subjective listening experiences.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


In an older thread about the Meyer/Moran study relating
to the audibility of "bottlenecking" the output of SACD
through the A/D/A section of a CD-recorder, the need of
calibration was mentioned:

"Your results weren't calibrated, because you didn't come
up with any measurement of the differences that your
experimental setup could actually detect with your chosen
source material and test subjects.

This is a false claim.

It can be determined from extant psychoacoustic data exactly what kind of
roll-offs are required to cause an audible difference.

Exactly what kind of brick-wall roll-off that is required to cause an
audible difference has been known for decades, based on listening tests.

For example, my www.pcabx.com web site in 2002 had dozens of test files
composed of various wideband musical selections, to which brick wall filters
of various frequencies had been applied. The cut-off frequencies ranged
down from about 45 KHz to about 11 KHz in logical steps.

This could have been
done by generating test material with known degradations
and determining which of these were audible.

A good idea, and this has been done over and over again.

In other words, by generating positive differences that could be detected,
not negative differences which could not be
detected."

There's only one thing with extant data of this kind - it supports the idea
that the CD format is capable of sonically transparent reproduction of
music.

The same author in a current thread said:

"The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the
source material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution
and suitability to detect the effects being evaluated".

There's no obvious need to re-invent the wheel.

My question is, is there a real need for calibration or
is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test
came up with a negative result?

I guess the whole issue arises when audiophiles are unaware of, or unwilling
to accept the results of well-known scientific investigations that have been
done over a period of years and decades.

[C. Leeds]

nabob wrote (in message ):

Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct
a study that produces a different result.

I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is just silly.
There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide
scientific studies to substantiate their opinions. Certainly there's no
mention of this in the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific
forum - it's a Usenet discussion group.

Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject opinions as he sees
fit. But let's not stifle discussion by accepting nabob's absurd demand.

[John Nunes]

On 6/20/2010 9:57 AM, C. Leeds wrote:
nabob wrote (in message ):

Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct
a study that produces a different result.

I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is just silly.
There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide
scientific studies to substantiate their opinions. Certainly there's no
mention of this in the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific
forum - it's a Usenet discussion group.

Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject opinions as he sees
fit. But let's not stifle discussion by accepting nabob's absurd demand.

I don't read minds, but seems quite obvious to me nabob was referring to
those doing serious research. Granted, he shouldn't have used the word
"anybody."

BTW, a "scientific" study conducted to substantiate a personal opinion
isn't science, but rather more like propaganda. An idea that becomes a
hypothesis is not necessarily a personal opinion.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Jun 20, 9:57=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide
scientific studies to substantiate their opinions.

That's true, but on the other hand if one goes a step further and
claims that one's opinions are more than just opinions but facts, then
they should not be surprised or upset when asked to provide their
evidence. And if what they call evidence doesn't meet the evidentiary
standards common to reasonable discourse, then they should not get
upset when other people aren't persuaded to change their minds.

Alas, in this forum we find, time after time, that some people state
their unsubstantiated personal opinions as fact, and not opinions.
And get upset when asked for evidence to substantiate their
extraordinary claims.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


nabob wrote (in message ):

Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an
obligation to conduct a study that produces a different
result.

I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is
just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any
obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate
their opinions.

That's right. Nobody has any obligation to do even one little thing to
support their claims. Then, every reasonable person recognizes the claims
for what they are, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, and simply moves on.

Certainly there's no mention of this in
the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific forum
- it's a Usenet discussion group.

It's a rather divided forum. On one side we have people who defend
unsubstantiated claims, and on the other side we have people who are
themselves capable of making claims and supporting them with reliable,
well-thought out evidence.

Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject
opinions as he sees fit.

Exactly. Those who wish to suspend disbelief can continue to do so, and say
what they will while they are doing it.

But let's not stifle discussion
by accepting nabob's absurd demand.

Nabob's demands only apply to people who consider themselves rational.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

Alas, in this forum we find, time after time, that some people state
their unsubstantiated personal opinions as fact, and not opinions.
And get upset when asked for evidence to substantiate their
extraordinary claims.

We also find that some people make it clear that their opinion about the
sound of ____________ (software, hardware, etc.) is just that: their
opinion.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:55:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

=20
nabob wrote (in message ):
=20
Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an
obligation to conduct a study that produces a different
result.
=20
I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is
just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any
obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate
their opinions.
=20
That's right. Nobody has any obligation to do even one little thing to=20
support their claims. Then, every reasonable person recognizes the clai=
ms=20
for what they are, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, and simply move=
s on.
=20
Certainly there's no mention of this in
the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific forum
- it's a Usenet discussion group.
=20
It's a rather divided forum. On one side we have people who defend=20
unsubstantiated claims, and on the other side we have people who are=20
themselves capable of making claims and supporting them with reliable,=20
well-thought out evidence.
=20
Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject
opinions as he sees fit.
=20
Exactly. Those who wish to suspend disbelief can continue to do so, and=
say=20
what they will while they are doing it.
=20
But let's not stifle discussion
by accepting nabob's absurd demand.
=20
Nabob's demands only apply to people who consider themselves rational.=20
=20
=20

Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational" irrespective of=20
whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger 100% of the time. Audio, as a=20
hobby, is more akin to politics than it is to science or engineering in t=
hat=20
people have strong opinions about almost everything, and not all audio=20
subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what=20
logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should.=20

Take vinyl, for instance. Good vinyl has always been one of those areas w=
here=20
the whole is certainly greater than the mere sum of it's parts. "Hi-Fi=20
Choice" writer Jimmy Hughes* put it eloquently and succinctly recently in=
an=20
opinion piece he wrote about Linn Sondek's LP-12 record deck:

"On a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less=
=20
background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower=20
peak-level distortion. Yet, against all the odds, vinyl offers a musical=20
integrity that transcends it's limitations creating results that are spec=
ial=20
and unique. Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content =
of=20
the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the same=
=20
musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs =AD the sense=
of=20
real people playing real instruments in a tangible space."=20

I don't know about the rest of you, but that's what I listen to recorded=20
music to experience.=20

I might also add that I make my own digital recordings that have all of t=
he=20
above - in spades. But you can't buy digital recordings on the open marke=
t=20
that sound as good. I don't pretend to understand why this should be so, =
it's=20
certainly not that difficult to make spectacular sounding digital even at=
=20
16-bit/44.1 KHz Redbook standards. I have thousands of commercial digital=
=20
recordings on CD, DVD-A, SACD, and even DAT. None sound as good as my own=
=20
"home-made" digital creations or even as good as the best available from=
=20
vinyl.=20

* "Hi Fi Choice" is a magazine that I admire more and more. They not only=
=20
listen subjectively, but they also do measurement tests of equipment and =
they=20
do DBTs as well. Like most hobbyist publications, the Brits just seem to =
do=20
it better. Better writing, better content, more in-depth evaluations...

[bob]

On Jun 20, 12:57=A0pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:
nabob wrote (in message ):

Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct
a study that produces a different result.

I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is just silly.
There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide
scientific studies to substantiate their opinions.

To clarify, I would draw a distinction between opinions and technical
claims:

* "I think hi-res formats make an audible difference, and I don't care
what the JAES says" is an opinion.

* "The JAES study is flawed because its methodology was not
calibrated" is a technical claim (albeit a pretty meaningless one).

I wouldn't expect scientific back-up for the first statement, though I
think it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether there is any scientific
back-up for it. (Also, I think it's perfectly reasonable to note that
if you make the first part of the statement, without said back-up, you
are also making the second part.)

However, I think anyone making the second statement *does* have an
obligation to present scientific support for it.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:55:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


nabob wrote (in message
):

Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an
obligation to conduct a study that produces a different
result.

I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is
just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any
obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate
their opinions.

That's right. Nobody has any obligation to do even one
little thing to support their claims. Then, every
reasonable person recognizes the claims for what they
are, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, and simply
moves on.

Certainly there's no mention of this in
the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific
forum - it's a Usenet discussion group.

It's a rather divided forum. On one side we have people
who defend unsubstantiated claims, and on the other side
we have people who are themselves capable of making
claims and supporting them with reliable, well-thought
out evidence.

Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject
opinions as he sees fit.

Exactly. Those who wish to suspend disbelief can
continue to do so, and say what they will while they are
doing it.

But let's not stifle discussion
by accepting nabob's absurd demand.

Nabob's demands only apply to people who consider
themselves rational.

Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational"
irrespective of whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger
100% of the time.

Seems like an attempt to unecessarily make this discussion personal.

Audio, as a hobby, is more akin to
politics than it is to science or engineering in that
people have strong opinions about almost everything, and
not all audio subjects can be distilled into their basic
technologies or yield to what logically "ought to be"
just because some "expert" says it should.

Interesting idea, that audio is more like politics than science. I guess
that would be a revelation of your true state of mind. Most audio
professionals see Audio as being both and art and a science. Being involved
in several different arts, it has been my experience that once you exclude
the dilentantes who by defintion cannot fully appreciate the art and science
aspects of audio, audio is no more political than many other arts.

Take vinyl, for instance.

Vinyl seems to be irrelevant to the discussion since only a tiny minority of
people who are interested in audio are interested in vinyl.

[bob]

On Jun 21, 5:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational" irrespective of
whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger 100% of the time. Audio, as a
hobby, is more akin to politics than it is to science or engineering in t=
hat
people have strong opinions about almost everything, and not all audio
subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what
logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should.

But some audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic
technologies, so to speak. Some people apparently refuse to recognize
this. I suspect that's what Arny was getting at about "rational."

Take vinyl, for instance. Good vinyl has always been one of those areas w=
here
the whole is certainly greater than the mere sum of it's parts. "Hi-Fi
Choice" writer Jimmy Hughes* put it eloquently and succinctly recently in=
an
opinion piece he wrote about Linn Sondek's LP-12 record deck:

"On a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less
background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower
peak-level distortion. Yet, against all the odds, vinyl offers a musical
integrity that transcends it's limitations creating results that are spec=
ial
and unique. Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content =
of
the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the same
musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs =AD the sense=
of
real people playing real instruments in a tangible space."

This is a good example of a statement about audio that is not
rational, in that it refuses to acknowledge what engineering and
science *can* tell us about audio.

snip

* "Hi Fi Choice" is a magazine that I admire more and more. They not only
listen subjectively, but they also do measurement tests of equipment and =
they
do DBTs as well. Like most hobbyist publications, the Brits just seem to =
do
it better. Better writing, better content, more in-depth evaluations...

It always seemed to me that they were just better at putting an
empirical gloss on the usual subjective fluff. I wasn't aware that
they'd done much in the DBT department. Perhaps you are confusing
blind comparisons with something worthy of the term "test"?

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:33:37 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 21, 5:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational" irrespective of
whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger 100% of the time. Audio, as a
hobby, is more akin to politics than it is to science or engineering in t=
hat
people have strong opinions about almost everything, and not all audio
subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what
logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should.

But some audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic
technologies, so to speak. Some people apparently refuse to recognize
this. I suspect that's what Arny was getting at about "rational."

I agree that many audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic
technologies and that the analysis of same is incontrovertible. My point is
that logic doesn't always reflect human experience. This is especially true
with something as personal and emotional as listening to music.

Take vinyl, for instance. Good vinyl has always been one of those areas w=
here
the whole is certainly greater than the mere sum of it's parts. "Hi-Fi
Choice" writer Jimmy Hughes* put it eloquently and succinctly recently in=
an
opinion piece he wrote about Linn Sondek's LP-12 record deck:

"On a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less
background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower
peak-level distortion. Yet, against all the odds, vinyl offers a musical
integrity that transcends it's limitations creating results that are spec=
ial
and unique. Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content =
of
the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the same
musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs =AD the sense=
of
real people playing real instruments in a tangible space."

This is a good example of a statement about audio that is not
rational, in that it refuses to acknowledge what engineering and
science *can* tell us about audio.

But this example DOES acknowledge it. Mr. Hughes clearly states that ""On a
point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less
background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower
peak-level distortion." Looks mighty like an acknowledgement of what
engineering and science *can* tell us about audio to me.

snip

* "Hi Fi Choice" is a magazine that I admire more and more. They not only
listen subjectively, but they also do measurement tests of equipment and =
they
do DBTs as well. Like most hobbyist publications, the Brits just seem to =
do
it better. Better writing, better content, more in-depth evaluations...

It always seemed to me that they were just better at putting an
empirical gloss on the usual subjective fluff. I wasn't aware that
they'd done much in the DBT department.

But they do.

Perhaps you are confusing
blind comparisons with something worthy of the term "test"?

I am confusing nothing. They say that they do blind comparisons especially
when comparing a bunch of like devices like DACs.

OTOH, they and 'Hi-Fi News' are certainly more entertaining than the US rags,
and that's mostly what magazines are for anyway; entertainment.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:26:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:55:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


nabob wrote (in message
):

Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an
obligation to conduct a study that produces a different
result.

I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is
just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any
obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate
their opinions.

That's right. Nobody has any obligation to do even one
little thing to support their claims. Then, every
reasonable person recognizes the claims for what they
are, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, and simply
moves on.

Certainly there's no mention of this in
the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific
forum - it's a Usenet discussion group.

It's a rather divided forum. On one side we have people
who defend unsubstantiated claims, and on the other side
we have people who are themselves capable of making
claims and supporting them with reliable, well-thought
out evidence.

Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject
opinions as he sees fit.

Exactly. Those who wish to suspend disbelief can
continue to do so, and say what they will while they are
doing it.

But let's not stifle discussion
by accepting nabob's absurd demand.

Nabob's demands only apply to people who consider
themselves rational.

Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational"
irrespective of whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger
100% of the time.

Seems like an attempt to unecessarily make this discussion personal.

Not personal at all. Just noting, Mr. Kruger, that you seem to consider
yourself among the "rational" while implying that those who disagree with
some of your "informed opinions" are NOT rational. The audio hobby doesn't
have to conform to a completely rational approach (although it's certainly
nice when it does) because it's about a totally emotional pleasure -
listening to music (possibly mixed with a degree exorbitant consumerism). If
that makes the music sound better (whatever the individual listener might
consider "better"), then who are you or I to tell them otherwise. I know, for
instance, that, at audio frequencies, wire is just wire. I also know that
countless DBT tests have shown that properly constructed audio cables all
sound exactly the same, and it's certainly OK to state that as fact. But at
the end of the day, if an audiophile believes that a $4000 pair of 1 meter
interconnects, for instance, makes his CD player sound "better" to him, then
it DOES sound better to HIM. Logic has little, if anything to do with it. I
know that those cables don't do ANYTHING over a cheap set of Radio Shack
cables, you know that they don't do ANYTHING, but the owner of the cables
thinks that they do, and that belief enhances his enjoyment of the music.
Does that make him irrational? Not from where I sit.



[ Let's steer this away from the personal immediately,
please. -- dsr ]



Audio, as a hobby, is more akin to
politics than it is to science or engineering in that
people have strong opinions about almost everything, and
not all audio subjects can be distilled into their basic
technologies or yield to what logically "ought to be"
just because some "expert" says it should.

Interesting idea, that audio is more like politics than science. I guess
that would be a revelation of your true state of mind. Most audio
professionals see Audio as being both and art and a science. Being involved
in several different arts, it has been my experience that once you exclude
the dilentantes who by defintion cannot fully appreciate the art and science
aspects of audio, audio is no more political than many other arts.

Take vinyl, for instance.

Vinyl seems to be irrelevant to the discussion since only a tiny minority of
people who are interested in audio are interested in vinyl.

It's very relevant. It's a case where you (and some others who post here
regularly) have looked at the numbers and decreed the medium useless,
antiquated, obsolete, whatever. As such, it is a perfect example of what I
meant when I said that "not all audio subjects can be distilled into their
basic technologies or yield to what logically "ought to be" just because some
"expert" says it should."

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Not personal at all. Just noting, Mr. Kruger, that you
seem to consider yourself among the "rational" while
implying that those who disagree with some of your
"informed opinions" are NOT rational.

Again you're being way too personal.

Most of my opinions are not at all personal to just me, and many thoughts of
mine that some people call opinions aren't even just opinons.

This should be pretty obvious from what I write because so many of my posts
reference papers in relevant, refereed scientific journals. Furthermore,
while many of the ideas I share here seem strange to some, they are typical
of some of the best minds in the audio industry - sucessful and well-known
authors, educators, system designers, etc.

There's a problem with audio, and that is the fact that the people who write
for the popular press are frequently poorly-informed about the actual
technology that they write about. For example I think about a certain
highly-influential writer with a strong bias towards vinyl. He has no known
credentials other than his claims that he has an audio system is valued in
the six or seven figures. He has no known professional occupation other than
writing, and cannot possibly be fund his professed life style with the
writer's fees that would normally be paid for his published works. They are
a pittance compared to his investments in high end audio gear.

The audio hobby
doesn't have to conform to a completely rational approach
(although it's certainly nice when it does) because it's
about a totally emotional pleasure - listening to music
(possibly mixed with a degree exorbitant consumerism). If
that makes the music sound better (whatever the
individual listener might consider "better"), then who
are you or I to tell them otherwise.

I'll go further than that - the entire audio field (not just its hobby
aspects) does not have to be completely rational since it is generally
agreed that audio is both art and science.

One reason why audio is partially an art is that we currently lack the
science to completely support much of what we do.

I know, for instance, that, at audio frequencies, wire is just wire.

If you gave science its proper due, you'd be willing to admit that at all
frequencies, wire is just wire.

I also know that countless DBT tests have shown that
properly constructed audio cables all sound exactly the
same, and it's certainly OK to state that as fact.

At this point I would like to point out that the idea of "properly
constructed audio cables" "sound the same" is a truism. Adding no audible
colorations of their own is generally given as being one of the goals of
speaker cables.

The idea of "properly constructed audio cables" "sound the same" is a truism
is also not 100% true. I own at least one piece of professional audio gear
that was sold with speaker cables that were designed to audibly affect the
sound quality of the piece of equipment. They are properly constructed in
the sense that the entire ensemble is intended to be working most accurately
with the colorations due to the cables included in the set. But, the cables
themselves add audible coloration. BTW, the equipment is an NHTPro A10
studio monitor system.

But at the end of the day, if an audiophile believes that a
$4000 pair of 1 meter interconnects, for instance, makes
his CD player sound "better" to him, then it DOES sound
better to HIM.

That's called solipsism, and solipsism does not disprove science.
Furthermore there is a chance that he by chance has stumbled into a similar
case to the NHTPro A10 - a situation where the colorations of the cables
offset colorations elsewhere in the system. OTOH, perhaps it's the
self-gratifcation of doting on himself by spending that kind of money is
important to him. It's the audio equivalent of smoking very expensive cigars
or taking on the services of a very expensive personal entertainer or
trainer.

If this is what people want to do with their money then there are no laws
against it, and even the highest ethical standards generally given in our
culture do not criticize such things provided that a person is also
charitable.

Logic has little, if anything to do with it.

I submit that logic still applies. It's just a non-technical kind of logic.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 18, 7:07=A0am, wrote:
In an older thread about the Meyer/Moran study relating to the
audibility of "bottlenecking" the output of SACD through the A/D/A
section of a CD-recorder, the need of calibration was mentioned:

"Your results weren't calibrated, because you didn't come up with any
measurement of the differences that your experimental setup could
actually detect with your chosen source material and test subjects.
This could have been done by generating test material with known
degradations and determining which of these were audible. In other
words, by generating positive differences that could be detected, not
negative differences which could not be detected."

The same author in a current thread said:

"The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the source
material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution and suitability to
detect the effects being evaluated".

My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result?

Klaus

Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity
of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the
test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to
audible differences? No way to know is there?

[bob]

On Jun 21, 11:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I agree that many audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic
technologies and that the analysis of same is incontrovertible. My point =
is
that logic doesn't always reflect human experience.

IOW, humans aren't always logical. Sounds like you're thinking the
same way Arny was when he used the term "rational."

This is especially true
with something as personal and emotional as listening to music. =A0

I would submit that this has nothing to do with music, and everything
to do with some deep human need 1) to acquire things, and 2) to feel
some sense of efficacy and discernment.

snip

But this example DOES acknowledge it. Mr. Hughes clearly states that ""On=
a
point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less
background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower
peak-level distortion." Looks mighty like an acknowledgement of what
engineering and science *can* tell us about audio to me.

OK, now look at the second half of the quote, where he clearly rejects
things science and engineering can tell us about audio:

...Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content of
the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the sam=
e
musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs-- the sense =
of
real people playing real instruments in a tangible space."

Leaving aside the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about "recreating
emotional content," it is trivially easy to achieve exactly the same
experience from a CD that one gets from vinyl--just make a CDR of the
vinyl. It takes very little science to demonstrate that.

snip

Perhaps you are confusing
blind comparisons with something worthy of the term "test"?

I am confusing nothing. They say that they do blind comparisons especiall=
y
when comparing a bunch of like devices like DACs.

Then you ARE confusing comparisons and tests. They do not do DBTs,
they do blind comparisons. There is all the difference in the world.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging
the sensitivity of the test.

I think that it is instructive to practice a little symmetry here.

The symmetrical question is:
Do sighted tests need to be "calibrated" ?

I've never seen anybody discuss this question, probably because there is
little if any apparent problem with sighted tests lacking sensitivity.
Sighted tests almost always produce results that are favorable to a positive
hypothesis.

Why isn't the fact that sighted tests almost always produce results that are
favorable to a positive hypothesis a problem?

A null with no calibration has too many variables.

Isn't a postive result with no calibration equally problematical? Don't
sighted evaluations always have more variables than the corresponding `blind
tests since blind tests reduce the number of variables?

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:03:39 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

OTOH, they and 'Hi-Fi News' are certainly more entertaining
than the US rags, and that's mostly what magazines are for
anyway; entertainment.


Magazines are mostly about generating revenue primarily through
subscriptions and advertising. They use "entertainment" as one
element of their business model: they promote the "entertainment"
of their subscribers as a means of attracting advertising, and
the subscriptions and newstand sales are merely "objective" data
to support their pitch to the advertisers.



My god Dick, what a champion of the obvious you are today 8^).

All entertainment is based on that model. Do you think, for instance, that
commercial TV (or radio) exists solely to entertain you? It seeks to
entertain solely to get you to view the advertising.

Besides, I was talking about magazines from the reader's perspective, not
from the publishers'. They are mostly about entertaining one with articles
and features about subject matter likely to be of interest to the reader.
Occasionally they also inform, but mostly they just entertain.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:36:00 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 21, 11:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I agree that many audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic
technologies and that the analysis of same is incontrovertible. My point =
is
that logic doesn't always reflect human experience.

IOW, humans aren't always logical. Sounds like you're thinking the
same way Arny was when he used the term "rational."

This is especially true
with something as personal and emotional as listening to music. =A0

I would submit that this has nothing to do with music, and everything
to do with some deep human need 1) to acquire things, and 2) to feel
some sense of efficacy and discernment.

snip

But this example DOES acknowledge it. Mr. Hughes clearly states that ""On=
a
point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less
background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower
peak-level distortion." Looks mighty like an acknowledgement of what
engineering and science *can* tell us about audio to me.

OK, now look at the second half of the quote, where he clearly rejects
things science and engineering can tell us about audio:

No, he merely states an observed phenomenon (one that he is far from being
alone in observing) that seems to reject what science and engineering tells
us about vinyl records.

...Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content of
the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the sam=
e
musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs-- the sense =
of
real people playing real instruments in a tangible space."

Leaving aside the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about "recreating
emotional content," it is trivially easy to achieve exactly the same
experience from a CD that one gets from vinyl--just make a CDR of the
vinyl. It takes very little science to demonstrate that.

While it is possible to achieve the same emotional experience with CD that
the best vinyl can provide (and I don't mean by merely copying a vinyl record
to CD, either), it is rarely done and it is VERY easy to do. Why this
wouldn't be the goal of all record producers is beyond me, but apparently it
isn't.

snip

Perhaps you are confusing
blind comparisons with something worthy of the term "test"?

I am confusing nothing. They say that they do blind comparisons especiall=
y
when comparing a bunch of like devices like DACs.

Then you ARE confusing comparisons and tests. They do not do DBTs,
they do blind comparisons. There is all the difference in the world.

Then the difference is lost upon me.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:13:41 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:03:39 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):


Audio Empire wrote:

OTOH, they and 'Hi-Fi News' are certainly more entertaining

than the US rags, and that's mostly what magazines are for
anyway; entertainment.

Magazines are mostly about generating revenue primarily through
subscriptions and advertising. They use "entertainment" as one
element of their business model: they promote the "entertainment"
of their subscribers as a means of attracting advertising, and
the subscriptions and newstand sales are merely "objective" data
to support their pitch to the advertisers.




My god Dick, what a champion of the obvious you are today 8^).

I would be more than happy to conceded the title to you.

All entertainment is based on that model. Do you think, for instance, that
commercial TV (or radio) exists solely to entertain you?

Why would you even assume such that a question like this is necessary
and not completely rhetorical? Or maybe I missed the sarcastic irony
emoticon.

Besides, I was talking about magazines from the reader's perspective, not
from the publishers'.

But it is ENTIRELY the publishers choice that sets that
perspective. When you pick up ANY magazine, you have no
choice whatsoever what to read, only the choice of what
NOT to read. The notion that the reader has ANY control
over the perspective other than refusal is, well, ...

Seems to me that you are arguing a non issue. I read audio magazines to be
entertained and to see what's new in the industry. Magazines are good for
that. Occasionally, a magazine article about a new product piques my interest
such as several articles I've read about the new Magnepan MG-1.7s. The
industry "pundits" are raving about it. I went top my local Maggie dealer to
see what all the hullaballoo is about. They are easily the most speaker for
$2000 on the market today. They are very good; better than anything I've
heard from Winey and company for a long time. Without the audio rags, I
wouldn't have known about them. Sometimes I read something that actually
teaches me something about which I was unfamiliar. A recent article about
tone-arm and cartridge geometry in one of the US rags comes to mind here.

They are mostly about entertaining one with articles
and features about subject matter likely to be of
interest to the reader.

But more of interest to the advertiser, in that it's
all about getting the reader's attention.

That's their agenda, not the reader's.

Occasionally they also inform, but mostly they just
entertain.

But earlier you said, among other things:

""Hi Fi Choice" is a magazine that I admire more
and more. They not only listen subjectively, but they
also do measurement tests of equipment and they do DBTs
as well. Like most hobbyist publications, the Brits
just seem to do it better. Better writing, better
content, more in-depth evaluations..."

Now, while you certainly do not state so explicitly
and, indeed, you do refer to "hobbyist publications",
but I find it a bit odd that things like "measurements"
and "DBTs" and "in-depth evaluations" and the like are
concepts compatible with "mostly" entertainment. I am
not entertained by measurements, nor am I entertained
by DBTs. I use them to learn.

So, now I'm to be crucified for finding the learning process entertaining?

I find myself clearly able to separate entertainment from
information, but maybe that's just something quirky about
me.

Or perhaps that I'm more entertained by a documentary on TV that teaches me
something I didn't know than by a mindless sitcom or reality TV show means
that there is something quirky about me.

[bob]

On Jun 22, 10:03=A0am, Scott wrote:


Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity
of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the
test sensitive to audible differences?

The methodology has been used thousands of times in listening tests,
often with audible results.

Were the subjects sensitive to
audible differences? No way to know is there?

The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known to be sensitive
to audible differences. In addition, many of the subjects in that test
specifically claimed to be able to hear differences between the very
devices being tested. And they were able to hear differences in noise
floors in this very test.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 22, 8:19=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:03=A0am, Scott wrote:



Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity
of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the
test sensitive to audible differences?

The methodology has been used thousands of times in listening tests,
often with audible results.

A broad vague overview does not make any individual test sensitive.
people have crossed the street billions of times around the world over
the decades. doesn't mean you don't need to look both ways to avoid
being run over.


Were the subjects sensitive to
audible differences? No way to know is there?

The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known to be sensitive
to audible differences.

really? All of them? Nah.

In addition, many of the subjects in that test.....

"That" test? This was an answer to a question posed about ABX DBTs in
general. No specific test was refferenced in *my* post.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 3:03=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:07=3DA0am, wrote:
My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result?


Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity
of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the
test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to
audible differences? No way to know is there?


Assuming that there was a need for calibration. The M&M test was about
the audibility of "bottlenecking" a hi-rez signal. What calibration
signal would one use other than a bottlenecked signal (one would have
to otherwise some audiophiles would claim that the calibration signal
was not adapted for its intended purpose), so for calibration one
would use the signal that is going to be tested.

You say "was the test sensitive to audible differences". Before the
test you don't know whether or not there are audible differences! Now
assume that the differences were audible, how did you determine that
they are, in heavily biased sighted listening tests, in "non-
calibrated" blind tests?

What is perhaps worth mentioning is that on the AES forum none of the
comments referred to this particular calibration issue.

What is further worth mentioning is that in all those (AES) papers
where blind tests have been conducted calibration was never ever
mentioned.


Klaus

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 23, 7:44=A0pm, wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:03=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Jun 18, 7:07=3D3DA0am, wrote:
My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just =
a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result=
?
Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity
of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the
test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to
audible differences? No way to know is there?

Assuming that there was a need for calibration. The M&M test was about
the audibility of "bottlenecking" a hi-rez signal. What calibration
signal would one use other than a bottlenecked signal (one would have
to otherwise some audiophiles would claim that the calibration signal
was not adapted for its intended purpose), so for calibration one
would use the signal that is going to be tested.

The same signals one would use to test any set up for sensitivity to
audible differences.



You say "was the test sensitive to audible differences". Before the
test you don't know whether or not there are audible differences!

True, nor do you "know" that any given test will reveal audible
differences should there be audible differences. Given the body of
knowledge on the thresholds of human hearing that aspect of any given
ABX DBT can be gauged before conducting any further ABX DBTs. How on
earth would it ever be anything but a good idea to do so?

Now
assume that the differences were audible, how did you determine that
they are, in heavily biased sighted listening tests, in "non-
calibrated" blind tests?


Why are you asking about sighted tests? The question was do we need to
"calibrate" blind tests. The answer remains yes regardless of any
discussion of sighted tests. I'm really not interested in red herring
arguments. How would anything about sighted tests affect the need or
lack of need to calibrate blind tests to eliminate the possibility of
lack of test sensitivity to audible differences in the case of a null
result?



What is perhaps worth mentioning is that on the AES forum none of the
comments referred to this particular calibration issue.

What is further worth mentioning is that in all those (AES) papers
where blind tests have been conducted calibration was never ever
mentioned.


In the end the AES is just a group of people with it's own baggage.
Show me one published scientific researcher who would suggest checking
a DBT for sensitivity is anything other than a good idea. Show me one
scientist who will disagree with the assertion that without checking
any given ABX DBT test for sensitivity a solid null (not one that is
dancing on the threshold of a positive result) leaves us with three
basic possible explanations. 1. the listener was not sensitive to
audible differences. 2. audible differences were masked in that
particlular test. 3 There were no audible differences present.
Calibrate the test and 1 and 2 are profoundly reduced as possible
correct conclusions.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known
to be sensitive to audible differences.

really? All of them? Nah.

Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to hear, and criticize
those who have failed to hear purported differences before them, also fail
to hear when appropriate controls are added.

[bob]

On Jun 23, 10:44=A0pm, wrote:

What is further worth mentioning is that in all those (AES) papers
where blind tests have been conducted calibration was never ever
mentioned.

Of course not. "Calibration" is just blowing smoke. It doesn't even
have a fixed meaning here. Looks at the quotes in the OP. It seems to
mean something different every time a poster reaches for it.

The most important purpose of peer review is to confirm that the
methodology of a study is sound. The peer reviewers did that. Which is
why the only recourse left is to trash peer review and make fuzzy
appeals using terminology one has only a shaky grasp of.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jun 23, 7:44=A0pm, wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:03=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Jun 18, 7:07=3D3DA0am,
wrote:
My question is, is there a real need for calibration
or is this just = a demand of audiophiles because the
test came up with a negative result=
?
Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging
the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration
has too many variables. was the test sensitive to
audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to
audible differences? No way to know is there?

Assuming that there was a need for calibration. The M&M
test was about the audibility of "bottlenecking" a
hi-rez signal. What calibration signal would one use
other than a bottlenecked signal (one would have to
otherwise some audiophiles would claim that the
calibration signal was not adapted for its intended
purpose), so for calibration one would use the signal
that is going to be tested.

The same signals one would use to test any set up for
sensitivity to audible differences.

There is no such single thing as a "one size fits all" test signal.

As rule, different audible differences are most obvious with different test
signals.

For example, a test for level mismatch might be best tested using one kind
of test signal, and a test for nonlinear distortion might be tested using a
different kind of test signal.

This is clearly the case for tests involving test equipment, and it is also
true for listening tests.

Even high end reviewers have been telling us for decades that certain
differences are best heard with certain recordings. Admittedly we have to
treat knowlege obtained from high end reviewers a bit advisedly due to their
proven track record for claiming the existence of audible differences that
in fact cannot be heard in bias-controlled listening tests. But in this case
I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt in this particular matter,
because reliable listening tests show that some music is better than others
for various kinds of listening tests.

You say "was the test sensitive to audible differences".
Before the test you don't know whether or not there are
audible differences!

True, nor do you "know" that any given test will reveal
audible differences should there be audible differences.

Agreed. You actually have to do some listening tests, or know the results of
other relevant listening tests in order to make good choices of test
signals. In some cases psychoacoustics or ven just common sense can give
clues about the characteristics of recordings that are more likely to give
sensitive results.

However, this case is a little different. My previous comments relate to
situations where audible differences are known to be reliably heard.

The results of previous relevant listening tests of this kind have already
reliably shown that there is *no such thing* as a normal musical recording
where diferences were reliably heard. It has also been found that there are
no known exceptional (in a good way) musical recordings where differences
were reliably heard.

This is like saying that there is no horse that is best for finding the Lost
Grail, because the Lost Grail has never been found. Once certain very large
efforts have been put into finding something, it is not reasonable to
criticize people who fail to find it.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:41:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message


The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known
to be sensitive to audible differences.

really? All of them? Nah.

Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to hear, and criticize
those who have failed to hear purported differences before them, also fail
to hear when appropriate controls are added.


But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no
differences TO hear?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 24, 9:38=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

On Jun 23, 7:44=3DA0pm, wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:03=3D3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Jun 18, 7:07=3D3D3DA0am,
wrote:
My question is, is there a real need for calibration
or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the
test came up with a negative result?

Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging
the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration
has too many variables. was the test sensitive to
audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to
audible differences? No way to know is there?

Assuming that there was a need for calibration. The M&M
test was about the audibility of "bottlenecking" a
hi-rez signal. What calibration signal would one use
other than a bottlenecked signal (one would have to
otherwise some audiophiles would claim that the
calibration signal was not adapted for its intended
purpose), so for calibration one would use the signal
that is going to be tested.

The same signals one would use to test any set up for
sensitivity to audible differences.

There is no such single thing as a "one size fits all" test signal.

Of course not Arny. Hence my use of the word signal*s* which is the
plural of "signal."

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:41:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message


The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known
to be sensitive to audible differences.

really? All of them? Nah.

Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to hear, and
criticize those who have failed to hear purported differences
before them, also fail to hear when appropriate controls are added.

But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no
differences TO hear?

The differences caused by passing through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz
???bottleneck" can be measured with sensitive equipment, so they are
there. The question is whether anyone's hearing is good enough to
detect them.

One thing, though: the result would have been much more interesting if
the test had progressively shortened the wordlength until the test
subjects could reliably hear a difference. The experiment would have
been more difficult and time-consuming, though.

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:41:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

[ Excess quotation snipped. -- dsr ]

Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to
hear, and criticize those who have failed to hear
purported differences before them, also fail to hear
when appropriate controls are added.

But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there
are simply no differences TO hear?

If there are no differences to hear, then whether or not a particular
listener can hear it should not even be a question. It's moot.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jun 24, 9:38 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



[ Excess quotation snipped. -- dsr ]


There is no such single thing as a "one size fits all"
test signal.

Of course not Arny. Hence my use of the word signal*s*
which is the plural of "signal."

The use of a plural was logically cancelled out by the word "same" that
preceeded it. IOW, one would not use the same signals but rather different
signals, depending on exactly which different audible difference one was
seeking to hear.

The the whole concept of the sentence was cancelled out by the fact that
there is no known audible difference in the situation that was being
discussed.

If a difference, such as excessively high sample rates, is known to be
generally not audible, then there is no such thing as a signal that "...one
would use to test any set up for sensitivity to audible differences." No
known reliably audible difference was being tested for.

IOW, we have the obvious fallacy: What test signal does one use to listen
for inaudible differences?

;-)

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 07:54:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:41:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

[ Excess quotation snipped. -- dsr ]

Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to
hear, and criticize those who have failed to hear
purported differences before them, also fail to hear
when appropriate controls are added.

But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there
are simply no differences TO hear?

If there are no differences to hear, then whether or not a particular
listener can hear it should not even be a question. It's moot.

I propose that even if there were differences (like between speakers or phono
cartridges or amplifiers) and the person listening for those differences had
a "tin ear" when it comes to listening to reproduced music, that person
likely wouldn't hear them. Then it comes down to that old Frederick Nietsche
connundrum first postulated in his "Man and Superman": "If a tree falls in
the forest and there is no one there to hear it fall, did it make a sound?"

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:07=A0am, wrote:
In an older thread about the Meyer/Moran study relating to the
audibility of "bottlenecking" the output of SACD through the A/D/A
section of a CD-recorder, the need of calibration was mentioned:

"Your results weren't calibrated, because you didn't come up with any
measurement of the differences that your experimental setup could
actually detect with your chosen source material and test subjects.
This could have been done by generating test material with known
degradations and determining which of these were audible. In other
words, by generating positive differences that could be detected, not
negative differences which could not be detected."

The same author in a current thread said:

"The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the source
material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution and suitability to
detect the effects being evaluated".

My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result?

Klaus

Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity
of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the
test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to
audible differences? No way to know is there?

The M&M test setup was sensitive enough to reveal a flaw in one of the
players (which was then replaced); it was also sensitive enough to
reveal the different noise floors during 'silence', between DSD and
DSD--Redbook, when the volume was raised ~15dB.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 24, 12:35=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:


But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no
differences TO hear?

Without testing for sensitivity the answer to your question is yes.
It means that they either "can't" hear or there are simply differences
to hear or they simply can't discriminate those under that particular
test. It is easy enough to screw up such a test. Just continue to test
on ABX with differences that are near the threshold of audibility way
beyond the threshold of listener fatigue and you will likely get a
false negative. That would be one of many ways one can take a simple
ABX DBT and make it insensitive to actual audible differences. There
are a lot of ways to get bad data with any given ABX DBT. Why so many
folks want to ignore or deny this simple fact is beyond me. testing
any ABX DBT for sensitivity along with following a number of other
protocols to prevent bad data only makes for better tests. Not sure
why some folks here dismiss such care as unneeded or seem to be flat
out against such due care. this is the sort of rigore that sperates
real scientific research and amatuer weekend "science" doen by
hobbyists in their garages and basements. It's fine if one wants to
have fun playing scientist but it aint real science. I suppose if one
wants to assert that the "research of the weekend warrior as the equal
to real scientific research it would make sense to dismiss the rigor
of things like test calibration.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 25, 10:15=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
The same signals one would use to test any set up for
sensitivity to audible differences.

There is no such single thing as a "one size fits all" test signal.

Of course not Arny. Hence my use of the word signal*s* which is the
plural of "signal."

And the use of the word "same" means what?

It means "same." Why are you and Arny having such difficulty with
this simple idea? I'll spell it out. The same test signals (plural)
that would be used to test for sensitivty for any ABX DBT could have
been used for the specific test the OP asked about. That was his
question, what signal would be used. The OP used the word in the
singular form but I changed it to plural since I knew it wouldn't be
one single signal. Hope that clears things up.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jun 24, 12:35 pm, Audio Empire
wrote:

But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there
are simply no differences TO hear?

Without testing for sensitivity the answer to your
question is yes.

The outcome of any test you run with a negative result, can be interpreted
as follows:

It means that they either "can't" hear
or there are simply differences to hear or they simply
can't discriminate those under that particular test.

That includes any so-called sensitivity tests.

Let's review the current situation. There are no extant tests of the kind
that we are discussing that have had positive outcomes. Thousands of such
tests have been attempted in a wide variety of circumstances.

It is easy enough to screw up such a test.

This dodges addressing the current situation where thousands of listening
tests have been run to show an audible difference due to excess sample rates
with no known positive outcomes when appropriate experimental controls were
in place.

Just continue to
test on ABX with differences that are near the threshold
of audibility way beyond the threshold of listener
fatigue and you will likely get a false negative.

Since you specifically mention ABX, are you saying that there is no such
thing as listener fatique in sighted evaluations? Or are you saying that
some other methodology, such as ABC/hr is not at least equally fatiguing?
Are you asserting that all of the thousands of failed tests were all due to
listener fatique? Or, are just just dragging out an old, tired red herring?