Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:jS%lb.14523$HS4.54816@attbi_s01...
"Dennis
Well no. But you should put it in context. For example the most 'moving'
rendition of "Tonight's The Night" (Shirelles) I've ever heard was in the

back
seat of a '53 chevy with a factory radio. Does that make me want to use

that
audio system as a reference? Or make me want to emulate the sound?

So I can both relish/believe my 'experience' and also be aware of what
psychoacoustics tell us about likey causes of differences in perceived

"sound."


Well this doesn't surprise me. Those '53 Chevy's had tube
radios in them.

Dennis

  #42   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Mkuller wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote


...snips.....


Have you been to a live performance of music lately? Did it involve you
emotionally? Now listen to a recorded version of the same performance -

did it
make you feel the same? If not, what were the differences? Was it the

music
or the music reproduced through your equipment tha failed to stir you? The
emotional content is in the music - the composer/musician's intent which is
what music is all about and how it differs from random chords.


Then again, you might have had a bad seat, or a stomach ache.
Or a noisy neighbor. Or the acoustics weren't all that hot. You might
listen to the recording at home, in a comfy seat, with some pepcid handy,
in a quiet room, with the sound of the playback adjusted to your
tastes. And the emotional experience might be different. Maybe
better, maybe worse, maybe just *different*.

Alternately, it can happen that you have developed an emotional attachment
to a particular recording...and hearing the work performed live doesn't
quite have the same kick, for any number of reasons.

I think trying to use 'emotional response' as a criterion for sound
is pretty much a dead end; it's just too multifactorial a phenomenon,
to draw conclusions from.

--

-S.


Agreed. For example I attended the Simon & Garfunkel concert last Saturday
night. The sound absolutely sucked. Did the performance 'move' me?

Sure; it was great watching those guys do it again, live. But it was more of a
musicology/nostalgia deal. Seeing Paul, Art, Phil & Don do "Bye, Bye Love" as a
quartet was really special 'cuz that isn't on any record I own.

Frankly the sound just sucked and listening to the old recordings, where my
girlfriend can put here head in my lap, is much more enjoyable from a
sound-quality standpoint.
  #44   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Dennis Moore wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:IHWlb.4739$275.10158@attbi_s53...


I think trying to use 'emotional response' as a criterion for sound
is pretty much a dead end; it's just too multifactorial a phenomenon,
to draw conclusions from.

--

-S.


I don't think it is a dead end. I, and others, have had the
experience of changing some component resulting in
a different long term emotional response than with the
previous component. You might keep it months. But with
the same collection of music on the shelf to choose from
you notice you just aren't much interested in listening as
before the component change. Sometimes you swap back
to the other component, and your interest in listening is
back at a higher level.


Yep, a multi-factorial situation. Messy as heck to figure out.
But if you change the component and it gets better, pretty
hard not to feel that had something to do with it.


Pretty hard not to feel that way, perhaps,
but *because* of the multifactorial nature of the response,
quite possibly pretty wrong to feel that way too, too.
You just don't know for sure, regardless of what you *believe*.

Is it because
it sounded different, because you liked the use of it better,
or what? Hard to say, but also hard to dismiss and say the
component swap had nothing to do with it.


I didn't say the *swap* had nothing to do with the feeling.
It probably had very much to do with it. Research has shown
that lots of factors that aren't sound-related can affect
a *qualitative* evaluation of a component -- including the
way a component looks, what it cost, what the listener
has heard/read about it previously. That's one reason
Sean Olive et al built their speaker-swapper at Harman. What's
questionable is whether there was any real change in *sound*
responsible for the 'feeling'.


So do you believe your experience, or just right it off to
bias and ignore it?


I'd realize that it could be due to any number of factors
instead of, or in addition to, a difference in sound.
So I'd be careful about claiming that the emotional
response was due to the *sound* of the component.


--


-S.

  #45   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

The "fatigue" errors (tonal balance and distortion) are immediately apparent
with systems that lack transparency or dynamic capability. While it is true
that, if boderline, they may take an hour to be described as fatiquing,but
they
are apparent at first listen with well-chosen program material.








I'm not sure how that is even possible. What is fatiguing for one person may be
quite the opposite for another. There are people who are anything but fatigued
by the sound oft a loud nightclub PA or the sound that must surely be
unbearable to all of us comming from the car you can hear well before you can
see.



  #46   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Dennis Moore wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:IHWlb.4739$275.10158@attbi_s53...


I think trying to use 'emotional response' as a criterion for sound
is pretty much a dead end; it's just too multifactorial a phenomenon,
to draw conclusions from.

--

-S.


I don't think it is a dead end. I, and others, have had the
experience of changing some component resulting in
a different long term emotional response than with the
previous component. You might keep it months. But with
the same collection of music on the shelf to choose from
you notice you just aren't much interested in listening as
before the component change. Sometimes you swap back
to the other component, and your interest in listening is
back at a higher level.


Yep, a multi-factorial situation. Messy as heck to figure out.
But if you change the component and it gets better, pretty
hard not to feel that had something to do with it.


Pretty hard not to feel that way, perhaps,
but *because* of the multifactorial nature of the response,
quite possibly pretty wrong to feel that way too, too.
You just don't know for sure, regardless of what you *believe*.

Is it because
it sounded different, because you liked the use of it better,
or what? Hard to say, but also hard to dismiss and say the
component swap had nothing to do with it.


I didn't say the *swap* had nothing to do with the feeling.
It probably had very much to do with it. Research has shown
that lots of factors that aren't sound-related can affect
a *qualitative* evaluation of a component -- including the
way a component looks, what it cost, what the listener
has heard/read about it previously. That's one reason
Sean Olive et al built their speaker-swapper at Harman. What's
questionable is whether there was any real change in *sound*
responsible for the 'feeling'.


So do you believe your experience, or just right it off to
bias and ignore it?


I'd realize that it could be due to any number of factors
instead of, or in addition to, a difference in sound.
So I'd be careful about claiming that the emotional
response was due to the *sound* of the component.


This situation is often the stuff of which Audio Urban Legends are built. One
day I have a heightened response to some music, or the little lady says "gee,
that sounds great today, what did you do?" even when nothing at all in the
system was changed.

Scratching my head I wonder WHAT could have caused this? Oh yeah it must be
that spare change on the top of the left speaker. Wait a minute; maybe my 2
year old amplifier has finally finished breaking in? Maybe washing the throw
rug was responsible.

It could never be inadvertant self-bias.

  #47   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:10:02 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

Tom Stated:


I disagree strongly. A half hour will cause fatique in systems where the
tonal
balance errors promotes same. Indeed that's one of the bogus complaints

about
controlled listening; it's too stressful.

________________________________________________ ___________
s888Wheel stated:

I'm not sure a half an hour is all that short a term especially when quick
switching was being discussed. However, I have found several systems that

were
not fatiguing in a half hour that were fatiguing in a couple hours. No

doubt
some systems are so bad that they are fatiguing in minutes.


The "fatigue" errors (tonal balance and distortion) are immediately apparent
with systems that lack transparency or dynamic capability. While it is true
that, if boderline, they may take an hour to be described as fatiquing,but they
are apparent at first listen with well-chosen program material.


__________________________________________________ ________

Ref: Immediately apparent distortion..etc.

I think there are far too many "absolutes" here..I, along with many
others have noted certain unpleasant aspects in the audio
presentation after a longer period than an hour.

It is difficult to speak for the many that put systems together
and how long it will take to discover unpleasant little audio
glitches that tend to appear. One has to accept the fact that
others do discover these things only after weeks, etc.
Perhaps it best we live with that fact!

Leonard...

  #49   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

"Nousaine" wrote in message news:cTdmb.19015$e01.
So do you believe your experience, or just right it off to
bias and ignore it?


I'd realize that it could be due to any number of factors
instead of, or in addition to, a difference in sound.
So I'd be careful about claiming that the emotional
response was due to the *sound* of the component.


This situation is often the stuff of which Audio Urban Legends are built.

One
day I have a heightened response to some music, or the little lady says

"gee,
that sounds great today, what did you do?" even when nothing at all in the
system was changed.

Scratching my head I wonder WHAT could have caused this? Oh yeah it must

be
that spare change on the top of the left speaker. Wait a minute; maybe my

2
year old amplifier has finally finished breaking in? Maybe washing the

throw
rug was responsible.

It could never be inadvertant self-bias.


It could never be the component change could it?

  #50   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:09:45 +0000, Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:07:04 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:


This situation is often the stuff of which Audio Urban Legends are built. One
day I have a heightened response to some music, or the little lady says "gee,
that sounds great today, what did you do?" even when nothing at all in the
system was changed.

Scratching my head I wonder WHAT could have caused this? Oh yeah it must be
that spare change on the top of the left speaker. Wait a minute; maybe my 2
year old amplifier has finally finished breaking in? Maybe washing the throw
rug was responsible.


ref: the efforts above at humor-ridicule...the rug scenario might well
be an issue...if it was a large throw rug and flat with dirt,
maybe a washing would fluff it up and have an effect on the room
acoustics. Do I detect bitterness here..pity! As to the change on
the left speaker..one must define the coin denominations to
determine the audio effects. Note also, the inside bottom of the
2 year old amplifier was painted with "mil-spec" grey paint..it
delays the break-in every time! Ain't this a strange hobby?
And now on to the "world-beater" referred to as "Self-Bias".

It could never be inadvertant self-bias.

__________________________________________________ _______
Kalman wrote:

Ha! I spent many months tweaking the design of a crossover network
back in the days when I was so obsessed. After a while, I started
charting the changes since I got the impression they were somewhat
cyclic. Indeed, there was a correlation between whether I had had a
beer or glass of wine before auditioning and whether I increased the
low end of the tweeter output. The little bit of alcohol was enough
to cut, transiently, about 2dB from my auditory responses (later
confirmed by audiological test).

If we must control the auditioning situation, we must begin with
ourselves. (With acknowledgement to Pogo.)

Kal

__________________________________________________ ________

Leonard wrote:

...It could never be inadvertant self-bias?...as per Nousaine
... could it ever be hardware as per Dennis?...
...we must begin with ourselves..from Kalman.

Your point is well taken Kalman...we must start with ourselves.
As I have mentioned before..this is a two-sided issue here.
The hardware takes precedence over all, in one groups philosophy. It
becomes the dominant factor to that particular "mind-set". Somehow
they do not realize we are all flying blind once the sound leaves
the speaker!!

One cannot lay all the blame for all negative things in the
Audio domain to the Subjective "ear-mind" construct.
There are variables in the Hardware..in cables..in room
structures..air density..ad infinitum. These monkey around
with the audio signal prior to its arrival in the unstructured and
relatively unknown mental processes. Then to complicate that
even more, that data is passed on to a "decision-process" that
renders decisions about correctness and good and bad. This
audio image presented to our mind is the reason for all of this
discourse on the Audio Domain. Perhaps some day we will
be able to view everything from Hardware to the Mental-processes
as a well thought our continuum..we are not there yet! This excludes
the effect of chemical imbalances in the brain.

Drat...Is it any wonder that we flounder about trying to get a handle
on what we are talking about? Enough..I flounder about!

Leonard...



  #52   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:07:04 GMT,
(Nousaine) wrote:

This situation is often the stuff of which Audio Urban Legends are built.

One
day I have a heightened response to some music, or the little lady says

"gee,
that sounds great today, what did you do?" even when nothing at all in the
system was changed.

Scratching my head I wonder WHAT could have caused this? Oh yeah it must be
that spare change on the top of the left speaker. Wait a minute; maybe my 2
year old amplifier has finally finished breaking in? Maybe washing the throw
rug was responsible.

It could never be inadvertant self-bias.


Ha! I spent many months tweaking the design of a crossover network
back in the days when I was so obsessed. After a while, I started
charting the changes since I got the impression they were somewhat
cyclic. Indeed, there was a correlation between whether I had had a
beer or glass of wine before auditioning and whether I increased the
low end of the tweeter output. The little bit of alcohol was enough
to cut, transiently, about 2dB from my auditory responses (later
confirmed by audiological test).

If we must control the auditioning situation, we must begin with
ourselves. (With acknowledgement to Pogo.)

Kal


Amen; but we also need to relialize that this cannot simply be done with a
statement of willpower. IOW you can't just personally "check your bias at the
door" because:

1) much personal bias may be held at the subconscious level

2) some forms of human behavior and bias are simply a part of being human and
being alive. Such as: the tendency to report "differences" in quality when
given 2 identical sound stimuli and the propensity to interpret small changes
in level as changes in quality.

  #54   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

"Nousaine" wrote in message news:
Amen; but we also need to relialize that this cannot simply be done with a
statement of willpower. IOW you can't just personally "check your bias at

the
door" because:

1) much personal bias may be held at the subconscious level

2) some forms of human behavior and bias are simply a part of being human

and
being alive. Such as: the tendency to report "differences" in quality when
given 2 identical sound stimuli and the propensity to interpret small

changes
in level as changes in quality.



Not all hard to believe #2 above. That humans have a tendency
to report a difference when none exist. Which is why is seems
2 alternative forced choice tests would be better than ABX. In
2afc there is a difference in the two alternatives presented. The
question is whether or not they are significantly audible.

In the ABX method the tendency to report differences when they
don't exist would seem to muddy the waters unnecessarily.

Dennis

  #56   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Is it right to say that statisticians are
'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their
existence?


Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There is
no perception involved in such a position.

  #57   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:04:21 GMT,
(Nousaine) wrote:

Amen; but we also need to relialize that this cannot simply be done with a
statement of willpower. IOW you can't just personally "check your bias at

the
door" because:

1) much personal bias may be held at the subconscious level

2) some forms of human behavior and bias are simply a part of being human

and
being alive. Such as: the tendency to report "differences" in quality when
given 2 identical sound stimuli and the propensity to interpret small

changes
in level as changes in quality.


Or the bias to deny a difference if it does not fit into ones
world-view.

Kal


Such a bias is often ascribed to folks like me, Arny Krueger, David Clark and
Julian Hirsch. But that's exactly the reason I use bias controls when and
whereever practical to sort through this kind of thing.

Also although I've given people who report differences that I do not perceive
acoustically every practical opportunity to demonstrate this. But none has ever
been able to demonstrate an ability to hear nominally competent amplifiers or
cables or outboard DACs or modern cd players when even the most elementary bias
controls are implemented.

But, quite frankly, more often than not my personal experience fits with common
human traits. If you think of it why would one ever need to "ignore" real
differences? But the point about such a bias would be more useful if one would
find an acoustical source behind 'debateable' differences.

I also employ other technqiues, such as a compilation of programs so that
listening sessions can be accomplished with the same source material in roughly
equivalent order as well, to assist in leveling the playing field between
products.

On the other hand, many of the reports I see declaring difference that haven't
been confirmed by others to have acoustical basis seldom appear to have even
have a basic template to emulate the same listening conditions/routine from
product to product.

  #58   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

S888Wheel wrote:
Is it right to say that statisticians are
'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their
existence?


Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There is
no perception involved in such a position.


Of course there is. After all, statisticians can't *prove* there is
no such thing as a lucky number, can they? Isn't it *possible*
that such things exist, but we just haven't discovered it yet?

--
-S.

  #59   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:35:51 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote:


(Nousaine) wrote:
When I'm having a good time I can often enjoy a good program spit out
of a horse **** sounding audio system ....


We all can. That's not the point.


Then what is?

snip
Regarding "that swing." IMO the Swing is in the program (music and
performance)
not the playback equipment. It is true that a superior sound system may

bring
the Swing in a more accurate or realistic manner but the musical
qualities are
not "produced" by the playback system.

The playback system is only a transmission medium. It has no musical or

human
qualities; no rhythm and pace or other mystical characteristics that
take weeks
to develop or appreciate. It's either a transparent medium or its not.
If not,
the deficiencies can be discovered in a couple hours with a practical,
systematic, analytical listening regimen.

Agreed - the system is allowing the composer's and the music's *intent*
to come
through. Not all communicate it that well, regardless of their
*transparency*.


If the system is transparent .... adds/subtracts nothing ..... how can
it improve or diminish the 'intent' of the artist, songwriter, producer
or production staff?

If it's NOT initially transparent then it can ONLY subtract from the
production intent. That's the missing link in the subjectivist
viewpoint.

What good is an evaluation if it misses out on whether the system is
enjoyable and musical? You might as well just read the equipment specs.
Regards,
Mike


If the system transports the original program with sufficient
transparency then it has to be as 'enjoyable, exciting, fullfilling,
thought-provoking or irritating' as the production/artist team intended.

Anything added at the far end is only a single party-end user
preference. For example in enjoy-mode I never listen to 2-channel
programs without using one of the Lexicon Logic 7 modes because it adds
a sense of envelopment and spatial stability and 'realism' that is not
contained in the original program.

Just because I 'like' it and it's more enjoyable doesn't subtract from
my reference systems' ability to deliver the original as intended. My
'preference' is a personal choice.

__________________________________________________ ___
Ref: personal single-listerner issues...

Leonard wrote:

As those of us with a differing view have been saying for
a long time...however, the inability of speaker systems, acoustic
surroundings and other odd elements in the
mix can detract from those "reference systems" that are
dry, irritating and harsh on the ears. They are not something one can
listen to for extended periods of time. They are there for a particular
"mindset" that requires this "reference"
or "standard" sitting there. If they are happy...so be it. However, the
real world generally requires some digital mellowing to satify the
practical side of our Personal choice. Not a thing wrong with this
action...it is an action to satisfy desires of the analysis by the
"ear-brain" construct.

But then, some do not recognize "personal choice"...and relate it to
"bias" and other buzz words that have no value in this audio domain in
the first place.

  #60   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Steven said


Is it right to say that statisticians are
'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their
existence?


I said


Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There

is
no perception involved in such a position.



Steven said


Of course there is. After all, statisticians can't *prove* there is
no such thing as a lucky number, can they? Isn't it *possible*
that such things exist, but we just haven't discovered it yet?


Have you ever wondered why your club of audiophiles who think they have all the
right answers is so small? Charm is one factor IMO. If the data is accurate
statisticians can prove that there is or is not any lucky numbers in a given
situation. If they find lucky numbers then one could examine the situation and
find a cause for the lucky numbers. IOW there can be lucky numbers in given
situations but they aren't really lucky, they are simply better for physical
reasons. Of course none of this has anything to do with audio.



  #61   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said



Is it right to say that statisticians are
'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their
existence?


I said



Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact. There

is
no perception involved in such a position.



Steven said



Of course there is. After all, statisticians can't *prove* there is
no such thing as a lucky number, can they? Isn't it *possible*
that such things exist, but we just haven't discovered it yet?


Have you ever wondered why your club of audiophiles who think they have all the
right answers is so small? Charm is one factor IMO.


Hmm.. seems to me there's plenty of 'charm' to go around in both 'clubs'.
Your 'club' hasn't exactly impressed me with its affability.

Do you think the club of statisticians has all the right answers
lucky numbers?

If the data is accurate
statisticians can prove that there is or is not any lucky numbers in a given
situation.


Ah. But they can never test all situations, can they? I mean, you never
know FOR SURE, right? So let's keep an open mind. There may be stuff
that statisticians don't know about yet.

If they find lucky numbers then one could examine the situation and
find a cause for the lucky numbers. IOW there can be lucky numbers in given
situations but they aren't really lucky, they are simply better for physical
reasons. Of course none of this has anything to do with audio.


Of course it does -- since obviously I'm parodying arguments that
you (and your 'club') have used when scientific explanations are offered.

But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality.
I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount
the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect bias
as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no 'checks for
accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to believe there
should be difference.

Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains (e.g.,
the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible difference)...
should that be called 'bias'?

--
-S.

  #62   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Steven said


Is it right to say that statisticians are
'biased' against the idea of lucky numbers, when they discount their
existence?



I said



Nope. That wouldn't be a bias. It would be a known mathematical fact.

There
is
no perception involved in such a position


Steven said



Of course there is. After all, statisticians can't *prove* there is
no such thing as a lucky number, can they? Isn't it *possible*
that such things exist, but we just haven't discovered it yet?


I said


Have you ever wondered why your club of audiophiles who think they have all

the
right answers is so small? Charm is one factor IMO.


Steven said


Hmm.. seems to me there's plenty of 'charm' to go around in both 'clubs'.


Both clubs? There are two clubs and two clubs only? Every audiophile outside of
the handful of folks I am refering to on RAHE are all in one other club? That
is one huge club. It must have some appeal.

Steven said


Your 'club' hasn't exactly impressed me with its affability.


I didn't know I belonged to such a popular club.

Steven said


Do you think the club of statisticians has all the right answers
lucky numbers?


I think statistitions can find all the right answers regarding lucky numbers. I
thought I answered this already. It still has nothing to do with audio.

I said


If the data is accurate
statisticians can prove that there is or is not any lucky numbers in a

given
situation.


Steven said


Ah. But they can never test all situations, can they? I mean, you never
know FOR SURE, right? So let's keep an open mind. There may be stuff
that statisticians don't know about yet.


I you trying to prove anything other than my comment on charm was dead on? I
see, statititions don't have all the data in the universe so everything sounds
the same or one is simply gullible. There is a reason why the club is so small.

I said


If they find lucky numbers then one could examine the situation and
find a cause for the lucky numbers. IOW there can be lucky numbers in given
situations but they aren't really lucky, they are simply better for

physical
reasons. Of course none of this has anything to do with audio.



Steven said


Of course it does -


No it doesn't. It's just another attempt to coatail cetain beliefs on better
established and proven conventions such as statistical analysis. Lucky numbers
have no bearing on audio. Bad anologies prove nothing.

Steven said

since obviously I'm parodying arguments that
you (and your 'club') have used when scientific explanations are offered.


What is the scientific explination for why the Hallograph cannot make a
difference in the sound of playback in a given room? The club offers a lot of
sarcasm but little in the way of good scientific explinations for their
positions.

Steven said

But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality.
I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount
the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect
bias
as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no
'checks for
accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to
believe there
should be difference.


Indeed this is another reason why the club is so small. do you tell others they
don't really know what their favorite restaurant is if they haven't done bias
controled taste tests? *Do you do bias controled tests to substantiate every
subjective qualitative opinion you have on everything?* If not, why the double
standard?

Steven said


Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains
(e.g.,
the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible
difference)...
should that be called 'bias'?


Calling everything snake oil from every manufacturer whose advertising you
don't like is hardly reasoned skepticism. It is paranoia IMO.

  #64   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:13:35 +0000, Mkuller wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality.
I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount
the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect
bias
as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no
'checks for
accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to
believe there
should be difference.

Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains
(e.g.,
the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible
difference)...
should that be called 'bias'?


____________________________________________

Mkuller wrote:

I attended a pharmacist's conference over the weekend, where the keynote
speaker, a reknowned widely published Professor spoke about the limitations of
scientific *truth*. We can never know for sure that a scientific *fact* is
true - because the body of knowledge known as "science" is constantly
changing. One of the more interesting quotes he used to illustrate has a lot
of relevance he

"Lack of proof is not proof of absence."
D. Hume

Regards,
Mike

________________________________________________

Leonard wrote:

Excellent little blurb Mike..I wrote a "short-book" here a month or
so ago on just this problem of research and discovery moving
so fast that what is a "given" today is discarded by new
evidence tomorrow. I had read an interesting paper from an
old "IBM fellow" on this issue and how it makes taking a
hard line stance on any given issue a rather anacronistic
process, particularly in the scientific realm.

Naturally the group with the "hard-line" agendas began
lining up and shouting and waving their arms. But, this
is an issue that has slid right by the hard-line evangelists.
I was accused of "starwars" thinking...not related to any
issue being discussed. None could make the connections
of what is happening now and their hard line stances!

The quote by D. Hume:

"The lack of proof is not proof of absence" is classic!

Anyway...sharp, penetrating comments Mike.

Leonard...

  #65   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

(Mkuller) wrote:

Steven Sullivan
wrote:
But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality.
I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount
the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect
bias
as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no
'checks for
accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to
believe there
should be difference.

Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains
(e.g.,
the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible
difference)...
should that be called 'bias'?


I attended a pharmacist's conference over the weekend, where the keynote
speaker, a reknowned widely published Professor spoke about the limitations
of
scientific *truth*. We can never know for sure that a scientific *fact* is
true - because the body of knowledge known as "science" is constantly
changing. One of the more interesting quotes he used to illustrate has a lot
of relevance he

"Lack of proof is not proof of absence."
D. Hume


Of course; but currently no one has superceded the established thresholds of
human audibility which have been developed over the past century or so. IOW no
one has yet to show any plausible evidence that nominally competent cables have
ever been shown to be "audible" under anything except open uncontrolled
situations.

Science may be always in development but none-the-less just because someone or
a group of individuals make a 'claim', especially one that should be easily
demonstrated, doesn't mean that it should be accepted without confirming
evidence.

We can 'debate' for as long as we want; but those who have conducted
bias-controlled experiments to confirm cable/amp sound with scientific
investigation in mind haven't been able to confirm same.

On the other side, we have a group who wishes to decry the extant experiments
while still being unable to conduct replicable experiments that confirm those
"sounds" when bias controls are implemented.

My analogy is that when someone says "I can run a 2 minute mile; but I can't do
it if anybody is watching with a stopwatch" I think that all of us would
dismiss the claim until the claimant would demonstrate the ability.

With these "debate-able" constructs the proponents are quick to criticize any
attempt that fails to confirm the prior-held constructs; yet, they cannot
supply any contrary evidence that passes the simple test of not-having the
answers available before taking the test.

Regards,
Mike


Absence of evidence is not proof of absence; but neither is absence of positive
evidence PROOF of anything either. I'm surprised that folks that ardently
want/need to believe in cable sound simply don't just prove that those,
sometimes called "pretty amazing", differences are really there. It should be
so easy.



  #66   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
But thank you for making the points about accurate data and causality.
I can now apply them to the question of whether it's 'bias' to discount
the accuracy of a claim of audible difference. It isn't 'bias' to suspect
bias
as a cause for a report of audible difference, if that report contains no
'checks for
accuracy'....that is, no controls, no measurements, no prior reason to
believe there
should be difference.

Skepticism based on reasoning based on well-documented cause/effect chains
(e.g.,
the one demonstrating the operation of bias on perception of audible
difference)...
should that be called 'bias'?


I attended a pharmacist's conference over the weekend, where the keynote
speaker, a reknowned widely published Professor spoke about the limitations of
scientific *truth*. We can never know for sure that a scientific *fact* is
true - because the body of knowledge known as "science" is constantly
changing.


Scientific facts are not not absolutes, but
are necessarily contingent upon the available data.
I've said as much several times right here on RAHE, as
have other objectivists.

One of the more interesting quotes he used to illustrate has a lot
of relevance he


"Lack of proof is not proof of absence."
D. Hume


More commonly cited as 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'
It's been cited here by objectivists as well as subjectivists.

Absence of evidence *alone* is not evidence of absence.
But your Professor would probably agree that *presence* of evidence
stands for something too. Scientists routinely infer the 'absence' of
Thing X from the absence of evidence for it, PLUS the presence of
evidence for competing Thing Y. See for example, the roles of
'aether' in physics, or of Lamarckian inheritance in biology,
or the Earth-centric view of the solar system.

Really, if scientific facts were such wispy things, science
wouldn't have accomplished much by now, would it? Could it be
that the contingent nature of scientific fact is actually
a strength, in that repeated testing of models must eventually
weed out the wrong ones?

--
-S.

  #67   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

(Nousaine) wrote in message
Absence of evidence is not proof of absence; but neither is absence of positive
evidence PROOF of anything either. I'm surprised that folks that ardently
want/need to believe in cable sound simply don't just prove that those,
sometimes called "pretty amazing", differences are really there. It should be
so easy.


Note: I just dropped in while taking a break from a large number of
home-improvement projects.

Tom, your problem is that you think that all audio enthusiasts are at
their respective cores just like you. When you want to know if
something is truly "true" (for example, that a set of wires or an amp
does or does not color the sound in either a good or bad way) you do
something that allows you to be able to solidly validate that truth.
For you, "truth" is an objective concept that has to be based upon a
reality outside of the individual. That way, other individuals can
validate that same truth by using similar scientific techniques (DBT,
bench checks, etc.), and once that is done enough times it is no
longer just "truth" but moves on to become: TRUTH! Well, maybe not
quite that extreme, but the discovered truth about wires or amps,
CD/DVD players, or exotic sound-improving accessories certainly
undermines the various points of view regarding monumental or profound
advantages to certain wire, amplifier, or player brands.

However, to some people "truth" is a very different thing. For them,
some (but certainly not all) "truths" are fully subjective and have
little to do with hard-core concepts, procedures, or scientific rigor.
Well, for many of them this is not quite the case, at least with many
everyday products and procedures - particularly if they are job
related. Most people at least want solid truths when it comes to their
jobs, and most want solid truths when it comes to stuff like their
health and medical situations - or their investment portfolios.

However, many people (no matter how hard-headed they may be in certain
mundane areas) still want a bit of mystery and speculation inserted
into some aspect of their lives, and so they embrace existential forms
of truth here and there. For example, people go to church on Sunday
not because they have extracted truths about "god" from rigorous
research, but because they crave a bit of the sublime and ineffable.
For them, this still is "truth," because in this particular case
"truth" delivers a sense of well being and fulfillment. Digging too
deep would shatter the subjective perfection of those advantages.

For a lot of people (men, mostly), audio delivers a similar (but
admittedly, or at least hopefully, much smaller scaled) sense of well
being and fulfillment. Many enthusiasts enjoy the subjective kick they
get out of just thinking about how good their expensive amp or
expensive wires sound. They also gain a certain sense of self esteem
by realizing that they have something that many other people do not
have. They do not want that dream shattered. They need a certain
amount of romanticism in the hobby, and scientific number crunching
wrecks the party.

Admittedly, the joke is ultimately on them, because they may have
spent to excess (robbing their record-purchasing fund in order to buy
expensive hardware that works no better than cheaper stuff) and they
may have also purchased products (certain low-powered SET amps, for
instance) that deliver sub-par fidelity. However, a lot of them do not
care at all about this, because for them the "truth" exists in the
aura surrounding the products themselves and not in what those
products actually can do.

Note: anyone who writes me at my old
address
will probably get a "mail-box-full" message. Something is screwed up
in my computer (virus?), and so until I get a new computer in a couple
of months (this will be part of the same huge lifestyle upgrade that
is allowing for the major home-improvement work) I am using my
alternate Yahoo email.

Howard Ferstler


  #68   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

(Mkuller) wrote in message news:v1Vlb.11349$HS4.48351@attbi_s01...
(Mkuller) wrote
Sorry, Tom, but I disagree with you. Since reproducing music is the goal

and
music has an 'emotional' component to it, you cannot ignore the 'enjoyment
factor'. Some call it 'musicality'. If a piece of equipment scores high

but
you don't enjoy listening to it - isn't that pretty meaningless?


(Buster Mudd)
Does the music really have an emotional component to it...or is there
an emotional component to the act of listening to music? I.e., is the
emotion in the recording/performance, or is it in the listener? If
it's the latter, no
meaningful evaluation of audio equipment can even address this issue
without losing its objectivity. And if it's the former

..prove it.


Have you been to a live performance of music lately? Did it involve you
emotionally? Now listen to a recorded version of the same performance - did it
make you feel the same? If not, what were the differences? Was it the music
or the music reproduced through your equipment tha failed to stir you? The
emotional content is in the music - the composer/musician's intent which is
what music is all about and how it differs from random chords.


If the emotional content were "in the music" then A) both of the
experiences you describe above (listening to a live performance, &
listening to a recorded performance of the same piece) should ellicit
the same emotional response. After all, the emotion is "in the music"
and it's the same piece of music in both situations, yes? And B) every
listener would have the same reaction to a piece of music...because
the "emotional content is in the music" as you say. So if (to
oversimplify) Barber's "Adagio for Strings" is chock full of
Melencholy, then every single listener who hears that piece of music,
regardless if it's a live performance or a recording, should feel
Melancholy, right? Because the "emotional content is in the music".

Unless it isn't...

  #69   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:07:48 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:13:35 +0000, Mkuller wrote:


I attended a pharmacist's conference over the weekend, where the keynote
speaker, a reknowned widely published Professor spoke about the limitations of
scientific *truth*. We can never know for sure that a scientific *fact* is
true - because the body of knowledge known as "science" is constantly
changing.


We do however continue to abide by current theories until conflicting
*evidence* is demonstrated.

One of the more interesting quotes he used to illustrate has a lot
of relevance he

"Lack of proof is not proof of absence."
D. Hume

Regards,
Mike

_______________________________________________ _

Leonard wrote:

Excellent little blurb Mike..I wrote a "short-book" here a month or
so ago on just this problem of research and discovery moving
so fast that what is a "given" today is discarded by new
evidence tomorrow.


However, 2+2 stubbornly remains 4.

I had read an interesting paper from an
old "IBM fellow" on this issue and how it makes taking a
hard line stance on any given issue a rather anacronistic
process, particularly in the scientific realm.

Naturally the group with the "hard-line" agendas began
lining up and shouting and waving their arms. But, this
is an issue that has slid right by the hard-line evangelists.


Not if you can actually read, it hasn't.......

I was accused of "starwars" thinking...not related to any
issue being discussed. None could make the connections
of what is happening now and their hard line stances!

The quote by D. Hume:

"The lack of proof is not proof of absence" is classic!


Actually, the original quote is "absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence".

It is always trotted out by those who appear to believe that all
cables sound different, and that the far side of the Moon might very
well be made of green cheese, because we can't *prove* that it isn't.

Most of us who live in the real world prefer Occam's Razor - when
choosing among alternative explanations, the simplest is most probably
the truth. Real scientists are aware that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.

IOW, the far side of the Moon is made of the same rock as the near
side, and all cables really do sound the same.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #70   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

(Buster Mudd) wrote:
If the emotional content were "in the music" then A) both of the
experiences you describe above (listening to a live performance, &
listening to a recorded performance of the same piece) should ellicit
the same emotional response. After all, the emotion is "in the music"
and it's the same piece of music in both situations, yes?


Live vs recorded would elicit the same emotional response - if everything else
were the same. You, your mood, the context, the performance, your experience,
etc. but it's not and never is. So you focus on the music reproduction to
determine if there is something missing in the recording that was present in
the live to account for the difference in emotional response.

And B) every
listener would have the same reaction to a piece of music...because
the "emotional content is in the music" as you say. So if (to
oversimplify) Barber's "Adagio for Strings" is chock full of
Melencholy, then every single listener who hears that piece of music,
regardless if it's a live performance or a recording, should feel
Melancholy, right? Because the "emotional content is in the music".

Unless it isn't...


Everyone is different and has different things that elicit different emotions
in them. Melancholy music is a good example. I suspect that most people will
feel melancholy while listening to it. It is the conditioned stimulus/response
that the behaviorists have been harping about for a century or so. It is in
the music - stimulus - and then elicits the emotional response in the
individual - response. Do you have the response without a stimulus? If not,
then it must be in the music.
Regards,
Mike



  #72   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long term comparisons-meaningless

Howard said


Tom, your problem is that you think that all audio enthusiasts are at
their respective cores just like you. When you want to know if
something is truly "true" (for example, that a set of wires or an amp
does or does not color the sound in either a good or bad way) you do
something that allows you to be able to solidly validate that truth.
For you, "truth" is an objective concept that has to be based upon a
reality outside of the individual. That way, other individuals can
validate that same truth by using similar scientific techniques (DBT,
bench checks, etc.), and once that is done enough times it is no
longer just "truth" but moves on to become: TRUTH! Well, maybe not
quite that extreme, but the discovered truth about wires or amps,
CD/DVD players, or exotic sound-improving accessories certainly
undermines the various points of view regarding monumental or profound
advantages to certain wire, amplifier, or player brands.

However, to some people "truth" is a very different thing. For them,
some (but certainly not all) "truths" are fully subjective and have
little to do with hard-core concepts, procedures, or scientific rigor.
Well, for many of them this is not quite the case, at least with many
everyday products and procedures - particularly if they are job
related. Most people at least want solid truths when it comes to their
jobs, and most want solid truths when it comes to stuff like their
health and medical situations - or their investment portfolios.

However, many people (no matter how hard-headed they may be in certain
mundane areas) still want a bit of mystery and speculation inserted
into some aspect of their lives, and so they embrace existential forms
of truth here and there. For example, people go to church on Sunday
not because they have extracted truths about "god" from rigorous
research, but because they crave a bit of the sublime and ineffable.
For them, this still is "truth," because in this particular case
"truth" delivers a sense of well being and fulfillment. Digging too
deep would shatter the subjective perfection of those advantages.

For a lot of people (men, mostly), audio delivers a similar (but
admittedly, or at least hopefully, much smaller scaled) sense of well
being and fulfillment. Many enthusiasts enjoy the subjective kick they
get out of just thinking about how good their expensive amp or
expensive wires sound. They also gain a certain sense of self esteem
by realizing that they have something that many other people do not
have. They do not want that dream shattered. They need a certain
amount of romanticism in the hobby, and scientific number crunching
wrecks the party.

Admittedly, the joke is ultimately on them, because they may have
spent to excess (robbing their record-purchasing fund in order to buy
expensive hardware that works no better than cheaper stuff) and they
may have also purchased products (certain low-powered SET amps, for
instance) that deliver sub-par fidelity. However, a lot of them do not
care at all about this, because for them the "truth" exists in the
aura surrounding the products themselves and not in what those
products actually can do.


Howard, it seems you are speaking for others who simply don't hold the same
views on audio that you do. Have any of these audiophiles ever expressly told
you that they buy expensive equipment becuase they like mystery? Who has ever
told you that they buy expensive gear becuase they "enjoy the subjective kick
they get out of just thinking about how good their expensive amp or expensive
wires sound" but really think they make no real physical difference? Why do you
harp on "expensive" when many audiophiles you seem to believe arte intrigued by
"mystery" often don't buy amps that cost as much as Stewart Pinkerton's amp?
What audiophile has specifically told you that they gain self esteem out of
ownership of equipment many other people do not own? What audiophile has told
you that they "need a certain romanticism in the hobby?" Unless these are your
own views or these views have been expressly stated by other audiophiles it
would appear that you have built a massive strawman.

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
How long do CD-Burners last . . . . . . . Robert Morein Audio Opinions 0 March 8th 04 03:35 PM
long ground back to battery kkmike Car Audio 47 March 2nd 04 10:14 PM
???? Best Long Lasing Air Fresheners ?? jp Car Audio 2 July 3rd 03 02:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.

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"