Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Sep 2005 02:32:43 GMT, wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Stewart: Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values. Which electrical values might we not be able to measure? (I mean real ones, now imaginary ones.) I don't know. That's the problem. There are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Oh dear, yet another one scrabbling around for some mysterious force to back up his baseless assertions. There are no 'unknowns' at work here, there is only the *known* problem that expectation bias makes *sighted* comparisons of cables or amplifiers utterly useless. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"If one doesn't know the identity, then at least we can narrow down the
reported reaction to (1) the sound, (2) the reviewer's mood or other random neuronal firing." How would we know which is which? When people were told in a listening alone blind test that switching was used and in fact one bit of gear was active at all times, when the switch was said to have happened the reports of the typical subjective reactions switched accordingly. I think this goes a long way in answer to the question. Blinded listening to one bit of gear and recording reactions does not remove the creation of perceptions formed in the brain. When sighted, the perceptions are not random but formed from existing patterns. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"I would say rather that the obvious differences disappear when you are
required to conceptualize them and on the basis of that conceptualization make a large number of discriminations in a limited amount of time." One is asked, is this amp the geewiz mk 77 or the fuddy duddy box store brand? The person being tested having said previously that the mk 77 has such a distinct "audible signature" that he would know it anywhere. One isn't ask to characterize the difference, just to note which is the mk 77 or simply to say something is different, any difference for any reason, between amp a or b. The under great pressure is a strawman, people aren't required to do x number of identification in y time. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem? Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty? You cannot know what I see or hear. I should add that your insistence that you have insight into my sensory is insulting and unacceptable. I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables. There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it? In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a 3-minute mile. Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly? This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way to understand perception. Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not. Discrimination tasks that are based either on quick switching, or on the need to conceptualize the qualities of the sound, are IMO not good ways to investigate this question. Also note that perception is a fluid and very rich function, not analgous to physical functions. Mike |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it? In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a 3-minute mile. Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly? This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way to understand perception. Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not. How about asking yourself this question instead: do the different experiences arise from objective differences in the sounds? Or, as is possible, do they arise purely from subjective errors in perception? You have assumed the first answer is the right one, without grounds for doing so. -- -S |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Oct 2005 03:27:19 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it? In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a 3-minute mile. Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly? This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way to understand perception. Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not. Discrimination tasks that are based either on quick switching, or on the need to conceptualize the qualities of the sound, are IMO not good ways to investigate this question. Your opinion is noted, but unfortunately you offer no viable alternative. Until you do, *and* can provide evidence of its viability, science will continue to treat quick-switched level-matched DBTs as the gold standard for audio comparison. Also note that perception is a fluid and very rich function, not analgous to physical functions. However, if the subject experiences no difference in perception when listening to A and to B, it is reasonable to suggest that there is no audible difference. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the possibility of halucination is remote. The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote possibility. There has to be something to reinforce, no? That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this will be directly related to the prestige of the badge. I wish that reviewers listened to equipment blind, for the purposes of audio reviews, and that many audiophiles would choose equipment by listening without knowing its identity. The latter doesn't happen for mostly practical reasons; the former should happen. Presumably they have the resources. Actually, I'm being told over and over on RAO that 'it doesn't matter' to consumers whether the differences they hear are 'real' or not. It only matters that they're real to *them*. Needless to say, I find this viewpoint curiously incurious, not to mention a boon to snake-oil salesmen. If one doesn't know the identity, then at least we can narrow down the reported reaction to (1) the sound, (2) the reviewer's mood or other random neuronal firing. And in the second case, it's inappropriate to attribute the 'sound' to the gear. Do you think reviewers in , say, Stereophile, will agree? That's my point. They should listen blind but they don't. If we had many "blind" reviews, we could look for patterns. For example, we could look to see if a reviewer has a similar impression when given the same piece of equipment on a different occasion. Since this experiment has never been done, I claim we don't really know what the result would be. Mike |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Oct 2005 03:27:19 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it? In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a 3-minute mile. Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly? This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way to understand perception. Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not. Discrimination tasks that are based either on quick switching, or on the need to conceptualize the qualities of the sound, are IMO not good ways to investigate this question. Your opinion is noted, but unfortunately you offer no viable alternative. I think that non-comparitive or monadic testing is an interesting alternative. If I get the time and find someone to help me, I would like to do some testing in which I listen blind and rate the qualties of the sound. Over three or four sessions, I will have listened to every combination of DUT and musical selection. In any given session, no musical selection will be used more than once. Until you do, *and* can provide evidence of its viability, science will continue to treat quick-switched level-matched DBTs as the gold standard for audio comparison. Also note that perception is a fluid and very rich function, not analgous to physical functions. However, if the subject experiences no difference in perception when listening to A and to B, it is reasonable to suggest that there is no audible difference. I would agree, but my question is: how does one go about determining if there is no difference in perception? I think a test for this should control *all* the factors that influence perception, including context & the use of one's awareness. Mike |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it? In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a 3-minute mile. Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly? This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way to understand perception. Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not. How about asking yourself this question instead: do the different experiences arise from objective differences in the sounds? Or, as is possible, do they arise purely from subjective errors in perception? That is the precise question I ask myself. That why I wrote "do the different SOUNDS produce different experiences?" By the way, you use the word "error". If listening to the same thing twice produces different subjective impressions, I don't conclude that necessarily there has been an "error" in perception. I suggest that context affects perception. Mike |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem? Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty? You cannot know what I see or hear. Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you cannot run a mile in 3 minutes. In each case you have a model: you have a model of how the human body performs at running, and you have a model of how the ear/brain performs at listening. And you claim that certain functions are so far outside the limits that they are practically impossible. It is always possible for the physical world to do things outside our models, at least slightly. However, I simply believe that the world of perception and consciousness is so rich and fluid that it is far more likely to perform outside our fixed constraints. Mike |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not. Discrimination tasks that are based either on quick switching, or on the need to conceptualize the qualities of the sound, are IMO not good ways to investigate this question. But conscious discrimination is exactly what subjectivist audiophiles do, every time they report or discuss a difference between two components. How can it be that they can discriminate so easily, and yet a test involving discrimination is somehow flawed? Three points: (1) I don't claim that all sighted discriminations are valid. (2) Monadic listening---listening to decide what you think of something---is not necessarily a discrimination task. It turns out you can compare notes on two different listening sessions, so A & B can be "compared" -- but in a very different context than asking oneself how A & B are "different". (3) IMO context affects the discrimination function. It's the context--quick switching or the need to conceptualize sound qualities-- that I claim (or hypothesize) affects perception. Mike |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it? In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a 3-minute mile. Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly? This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way to understand perception. Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not. How about asking yourself this question instead: do the different experiences arise from objective differences in the sounds? Or, as is possible, do they arise purely from subjective errors in perception? That is the precise question I ask myself. That why I wrote "do the different SOUNDS produce different experiences?" Different *sounds* implies different waveforms -- physical differences in the compression waves that reach the ear. But that's not required for you to think you heard something different. By the way, you use the word "error". Yes, because if one perceives a difference when there *is no difference* that can only be an error in perception. They aren't uncommon...whihc is why 'science' -- by far the most successful method for modelling the physical world that we have yet devised -- doesn't 'trust' sense perception implicitly. If listening to the same thing twice produces different subjective impressions, I don't conclude that necessarily there has been an "error" in perception. I suggest that context affects perception. I suggest that you try calling a spade a spade, for once. -- -S |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem? Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty? You cannot know what I see or hear. Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you cannot run a mile in 3 minutes. In each case you have a model: you have a model of how the human body performs at running, and you have a model of how the ear/brain performs at listening. And you claim that certain functions are so far outside the limits that they are practically impossible. Except, his model of the 3-minute mile is not dervied from fanciful 'what if' scenarios. It's derived from verifiable real-world performance data about human speed and physiology. It is always possible for the physical world to do things outside our models, at least slightly. However, I simply believe that the world of perception and consciousness is so rich and fluid that it is far more likely to perform outside our fixed constraints. Now all that's required is for you to demonstrate that we *do*. You might want to do that *before* you start treating those 'beliefs' as foundational building blocks for ever-more-speculative models. -- -S |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
The conscious "impression" of listening to music is a function of (1)
the sound and of (2) pre-conscious processing. I'm proposing that perception can be understood better when *both* factors are accounted for. If (1) doesn't change but (2) does, then there is nothing erroneous about a change in perception. Although we may not be able to control (2) perfectly, making the attempt will get us closer to the truth than ignoring it entirely. Mike |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem? Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty? You cannot know what I see or hear. Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you cannot run a mile in 3 minutes. In each case you have a model: you have a model of how the human body performs at running, and you have a model of how the ear/brain performs at listening. And you claim that certain functions are so far outside the limits that they are practically impossible. Except, his model of the 3-minute mile is not dervied from fanciful 'what if' scenarios. Actually, all models start as "fanciful what if" scenarios, to use your language. Or as I would put it, we start with a question to be answered. My question is: what would we learn about perception if we tested it in a similar context to listening for ejoyment? I can find no existing answers to this question. Mike |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Three points:
(1) I don't claim that all sighted discriminations are valid. (2) Monadic listening---listening to decide what you think of something---is not necessarily a discrimination task. It turns out you can compare notes on two different listening sessions, so A & B can be "compared" -- but in a very different context than asking oneself how A & B are "different". (3) IMO context affects the discrimination function. It's the context--quick switching or the need to conceptualize sound qualities-- that I claim (or hypothesize) affects perception." Bottom line, show it, all manner of going on and on about "could be" and "possible that" etc. have no meaning in the real world until it can be shown they exist in evidence that can be tied to the real world linking and all of the above. Did I mention my cheese doodle subjective factor...? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Oct 2005 19:43:15 GMT, wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it? In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a 3-minute mile. Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly? Quite so - and the answer is that you cannot run a 3-minute mile. You can also not hear differences among cables, because the human body cannot perform to that level. This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way to understand perception. Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not. How about asking yourself this question instead: do the different experiences arise from objective differences in the sounds? Or, as is possible, do they arise purely from subjective errors in perception? That is the precise question I ask myself. That why I wrote "do the different SOUNDS produce different experiences?" Do you not even understand what you just wrote above? You stated "do the different SOUNDS produce different experiences?", which contains a clear presumption that the sounds were in fact different. By the way, you use the word "error". If listening to the same thing twice produces different subjective impressions, I don't conclude that necessarily there has been an "error" in perception. I suggest that context affects perception. So what? The sounds were demonstrably *not* different, which is the root of this debate. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... I think that non-comparitive or monadic testing is an interesting alternative. If I get the time and find someone to help me, I would like to do some testing in which I listen blind and rate the qualties of the sound. Over three or four sessions, I will have listened to every combination of DUT and musical selection. In any given session, no musical selection will be used more than once. What you're suggesting here is to connect some component whose identity is unknown to you and then rate the sound you hear. You describe it as carefully as you can using the english language. You then have someone else connect a competing component, and you once again describe the sound you hear. You repeat this process for each different component that you have available. Do I understand correctly? If so, the test will only be meaningful if you can draw some conclusion from the descriptions, and that of course means comparison. There has to be enough info to decide which component sounds the best, the worst and so on. IOW the descriptions have to be useful enough to allow you to rank order your preference on their basis. Frankly, I don't think you can do this. It would be even tougher--and probably more embarrassing--if there was the possibility of repetition, if the units under test were chosen completely at random. Norm Strong |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Oct 2005 19:43:46 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem? Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty? You cannot know what I see or hear. Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you cannot run a mile in 3 minutes. In each case you have a model: you have a model of how the human body performs at running, and you have a model of how the ear/brain performs at listening. And you claim that certain functions are so far outside the limits that they are practically impossible. Indeed - and experimental evidence shows that this model holds true. You on the other hand merely assert that elephants can fly, if we only alter our consciousness sufficiently. I would call this state of consciousness a dream. It is always possible for the physical world to do things outside our models, at least slightly. Only if it's a bad model. However, I simply believe that the world of perception and consciousness is so rich and fluid that it is far more likely to perform outside our fixed constraints. A simple belief, indeed. There are lots of those around, but luckily they do not affact the physical world, except where many people share such simple beliefs. We call this effect, religion. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... wrote in message ... I think that non-comparitive or monadic testing is an interesting alternative. If I get the time and find someone to help me, I would like to do some testing in which I listen blind and rate the qualties of the sound. Over three or four sessions, I will have listened to every combination of DUT and musical selection. In any given session, no musical selection will be used more than once. What you're suggesting here is to connect some component whose identity is unknown to you and then rate the sound you hear. You describe it as carefully as you can using the english language. You then have someone else connect a competing component, and you once again describe the sound you hear. You repeat this process for each different component that you have available. Do I understand correctly? If so, the test will only be meaningful if you can draw some conclusion from the descriptions, and that of course means comparison. There has to be enough info to decide which component sounds the best, the worst and so on. IOW the descriptions have to be useful enough to allow you to rank order your preference on their basis. Frankly, I don't think you can do this. It would be even tougher--and probably more embarrassing--if there was the possibility of repetition, if the units under test were chosen completely at random. Norman, this is done all the time. It simply means devising a series of meaningful rating scales (usually 1 to 5, low to high) for attributes you consider important, or adapt the ones developed by others if they seem satisfactory. Then after each listening session, you rate your impressions of what you just heard. After a few such sessions with each competing component in the system and all else held constant, you can begin to get a feel for differences, if any. Of course this is best done blind, but even sighted it can help quantify perceived differences that are arrived at monadically and wholly subjectively, with no forced comparison. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem? Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty? You cannot know what I see or hear. And how can you know that the *reason* for what you 'see and hear', is what you believe it to be? Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I heard the difference. He cannot do that. I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables. There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY. You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece. Metaphysically equivalent. There are some things that we cannot reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer, then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a sufficient one), I buy the product. I should point out that not every product passes the test. I have tried out a CD cleaning product which claimed to improve the sound of CD's. After several trials without even the hint of any difference, I dismissed the product as sonically worthless, thiough I still use the cleaner from time to time if I inadvertently get a fingerprint on a CD. I did not have any different 'expectation' for this product than for the cable. If there was anything to hear from the cleaner, I would have heard it. I did not. The question is *IF* the difference was really between the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY did you perceive a difference"? Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head') strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a different sound character. It's Occam's razor time! |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message What you're suggesting here is to connect some component whose identity is unknown to you and then rate the sound you hear. You describe it as carefully as you can using the english language. You then have someone else connect a competing component, and you once again describe the sound you hear. You repeat this process for each different component that you have available. Do I understand correctly? If so, the test will only be meaningful if you can draw some conclusion from the descriptions, and that of course means comparison. There has to be enough info to decide which component sounds the best, the worst and so on. IOW the descriptions have to be useful enough to allow you to rank order your preference on their basis. Frankly, I don't think you can do this. It would be even tougher--and probably more embarrassing--if there was the possibility of repetition, if the units under test were chosen completely at random. Norman, this is done all the time. Not really. It's done in your field (product testing), but only in cases where you already have strong reason to believe that perceptions will at least be *different*, and you want to know in what ways they are different. No one in his right mind would go to the expense of such a test unless he were damn sure the things he was comparing at least tasted different. This sort of test has never been used, to my knowledge, to do threshold tests of perception (with the obvious, and hence very dubious, exception of your Japanese hero). It simply means devising a series of meaningful rating scales (usually 1 to 5, low to high) for attributes you consider important, or adapt the ones developed by others if they seem satisfactory. Then after each listening session, you rate your impressions of what you just heard. After a few such sessions with each competing component in the system and all else held constant, you can begin to get a feel for differences, if any. An interesting choice of words: "begin to get a feel for difference." The statistics of demonstrating a significant difference in threshold perception using such a test would be mind-numbing, if they were possible at all. For one thing, you'd need to be able to tell whether the various factors you are testing for are indeed independent. The statistics start to grow meaningless very fast if the supposedly independent variables are not independent of each other. On the other hand, this is a perfectly logical approach when you know two things taste different, and you want to know whether your future customers will find one sweeter than the other, or smoother than the other, etc. Of course this is best done blind, but even sighted it can help quantify perceived differences that are arrived at monadically and wholly subjectively, with no forced comparison. If it's not done blind, it can tell you absolutely nothing about the *sound* of the equipment, because it would fail to exclude some very obvious and powerful non-sonic influences on those perceptions. bob |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message What you're suggesting here is to connect some component whose identity is unknown to you and then rate the sound you hear. You describe it as carefully as you can using the english language. You then have someone else connect a competing component, and you once again describe the sound you hear. You repeat this process for each different component that you have available. Do I understand correctly? If so, the test will only be meaningful if you can draw some conclusion from the descriptions, and that of course means comparison. There has to be enough info to decide which component sounds the best, the worst and so on. IOW the descriptions have to be useful enough to allow you to rank order your preference on their basis. Frankly, I don't think you can do this. It would be even tougher--and probably more embarrassing--if there was the possibility of repetition, if the units under test were chosen completely at random. Norman, this is done all the time. Not really. It's done in your field (product testing), but only in cases where you already have strong reason to believe that perceptions will at least be *different*, and you want to know in what ways they are different. No one in his right mind would go to the expense of such a test unless he were damn sure the things he was comparing at least tasted different. This is a fallacious argument. It can be used to determine if perceptions are actually "real" just as easily as it can be used for other differences. It is a subjective rating, and is used to report subjective results (such as taste characteristics). If there are differences, and enough trials are done, there will be a difference. If there are no differences, there will not be. It is that simple. This sort of test has never been used, to my knowledge, to do threshold tests of perception (with the obvious, and hence very dubious, exception of your Japanese hero). So dubious that that team's subjective rating results correlated with actual neurophysiological responses? So much for your having a scientifically open mind. It simply means devising a series of meaningful rating scales (usually 1 to 5, low to high) for attributes you consider important, or adapt the ones developed by others if they seem satisfactory. Then after each listening session, you rate your impressions of what you just heard. After a few such sessions with each competing component in the system and all else held constant, you can begin to get a feel for differences, if any. An interesting choice of words: "begin to get a feel for difference." The statistics of demonstrating a significant difference in threshold perception using such a test would be mind-numbing, if they were possible at all. For one thing, you'd need to be able to tell whether the various factors you are testing for are indeed independent. The statistics start to grow meaningless very fast if the supposedly independent variables are not independent of each other. They are clearly possible...but best done among groups of people totaling 150 or 200 people. That's why I said "get a feel for the difference". It would take at least 30 trials of each variable spread over a fairly lengthy period of time to allow for enough data for even moderate differences to be measureable with statistical significance. But it could be done. And it is the only way other than the large group monadic testing that I proposed over a year ago to determine if in fact the perceptual differences are real. So even though difficult, this is the kind of testing that must be done before you can possibly claim that abx-style (comparative, short-snippet) testing is valid. Because it is the closest thing possible to getting the influence of the comparative-test itself out of the equation.. On the other hand, this is a perfectly logical approach when you know two things taste different, and you want to know whether your future customers will find one sweeter than the other, or smoother than the other, etc. It is also perfectly logical approach if two things might taste different. The test indicates yay or nay, not your a priori assumptions. Of course this is best done blind, but even sighted it can help quantify perceived differences that are arrived at monadically and wholly subjectively, with no forced comparison. If it's not done blind, it can tell you absolutely nothing about the *sound* of the equipment, because it would fail to exclude some very obvious and powerful non-sonic influences on those perceptions. It would help quantify a sighted reaction, which is what Norm claimed was impossible giving rise to my original response. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Oct 2005 20:42:29 GMT, wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem? Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty? You cannot know what I see or hear. And how can you know that the *reason* for what you 'see and hear', is what you believe it to be? Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I heard the difference. He cannot do that. False on its face - I already did that. I do it again - I *know* that there was no audible difference between the cables, therefore I *know* that you only *imagined* that you heard a difference. I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables. There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY. You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece. Metaphysically equivalent. There are some things that we cannot reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer, then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a sufficient one), I buy the product. Fine, but that doesn't mean that there is any *actual* difference in the sound. Shame that you seem unable to accept this logical argument, even after all the mechanisms have been spelled out to you by several posters. snip irrelevance about CD cleaner The question is *IF* the difference was really between the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY did you perceive a difference"? Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head') strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a different sound character. It's Occam's razor time! Exactly, and it suggests that you expect a difference, *therefore* you hear a difference. Seems to work for everyone else in the world, and *you* are the only one around here who doesn't seem to understand that it does not 'strain credulity' at all, it's a perfectly normal combination of expectation bias and reinforcement. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem? Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty? You cannot know what I see or hear. And how can you know that the *reason* for what you 'see and hear', is what you believe it to be? Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I heard the difference. He cannot do that. He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think* you heard a difference. I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables. There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY. You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece. Metaphysically equivalent. But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true. There are some things that we cannot reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer, then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a sufficient one), I buy the product. No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than* the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether the sound is different or not. The question is *IF* the difference was really between the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY did you perceive a difference"? Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head') strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a different sound character. It's Occam's razor time! Wrong, because you underestimate or are ignorant of the power of the psychological effects. *No* competent scientist, for example, would consider the 'all in your head' explanation to constitute 'straining credulity', under such conditions. Obviously, 'straining credulity' is not a sufficient criterion unless you actually understand how likely things are. That two people in a party of forty can readily have the same birthdate merely by chance 'strains credulity' for people who have no clue about probability -- such people are likely to think it 'means' something. -- -S |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
On 4 Oct 2005 02:12:23 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head') strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a different sound character. It's Occam's razor time! Wrong, because you underestimate or are ignorant of the power of the psychological effects. *No* competent scientist, for example, would consider the 'all in your head' explanation to constitute 'straining credulity', under such conditions. Obviously, 'straining credulity' is not a sufficient criterion unless you actually understand how likely things are. That two people in a party of forty can readily have the same birthdate merely by chance 'strains credulity' for people who have no clue about probability -- such people are likely to think it 'means' something. I live in a small village of some two hundred souls, of whom about a third are regular visitors to the pub. Out of that seventy or so, five of us - including the landlady - have the same birthdate, which 'strains credulity' by a factor of 26, thereby gaining statistical significance. Must be a sign............... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I heard the difference. He cannot do that. He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think* you heard a difference. Proof? I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables. There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY. You 'heard' a difference. You don't *know* that it was really a difference between the cables, you only *know* that you think you heard a differece. Metaphysically equivalent. But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true. But in this case it does not matter. If it is IN PRINCIPLE impossible to distinguish between: A) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the listener B) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the cable what difference does it make? The observed phenomena are the same. There are some things that we cannot reliably distinguish above the 'noise' of our neuro systems and the blood coursing through our veins. And there is always some ambient noise (except in specially-treated, sound-deadened rooms). The answer, then, lies in repeated listening over several days or even weeks, to allow for the evening-out of our moods and neurological conditions. If after enough trials I am satisfied that there is a difference and a sufficient one), I buy the product. No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than* the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether the sound is different or not. Read my lips: It does not matter. The question is *IF* the difference was really between the cables, or whether it was imaginary. It can also be posed as "WHY did you perceive a difference"? Correct. So, as in any scientific question, we use the process of elimination. The fact that the difference was repeatable, over several days, and that the alteranative explanation ('it's all in my head') strains credulity, points to the cables themselves possessing a different sound character. It's Occam's razor time! Wrong, because you underestimate or are ignorant of the power of the psychological effects. *No* competent scientist, for example, would consider the 'all in your head' explanation to constitute 'straining credulity', under such conditions. Proof? Obviously, 'straining credulity' is not a sufficient criterion unless you actually understand how likely things are. That two people in a party of forty can readily have the same birthdate merely by chance 'strains credulity' for people who have no clue about probability -- such people are likely to think it 'means' something. All that matters is my purchase. -- -S |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 02:38:23 GMT, wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I heard the difference. He cannot do that. He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think* you heard a difference. Proof? He is correct, that is my position. Since you refuse to do a blind test, you have no way of knowing which is true. It doesn't matter. Do you understand that point? But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true. But in this case it does not matter. If it is IN PRINCIPLE impossible to distinguish between: A) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the listener B) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the cable what difference does it make? The observed phenomena are the same. Rather than being impossible, it is in fact very easy to make such a distinction - you remove from the listener only the *knowledge* of which cable is connected. If they remain distinguishable, then it's something in the cable. Consider the computer in 2001, HAL. Let's say HAL predicts a component failure. Dave goes out to replace the component and finds that it is, in fact, defective. Is HAL right or not? Let's say HAL does this with a 100% success rate. Later, we find out that HAl had no way of knowing that the component would fail. Does that make HAL wrong? It does not matter! If the correlation is 100%, that's all that matters in science! No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than* the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether the sound is different or not. Read my lips: It does not matter. Perhaps not to you as part of a buying decision, but when you insist on claiming - as you have done - that it's due to some audible property of the cable, then you come unstuck. I'm claiming that if the perceived difference correlates exactly with the presence of the cable in my system over a period of many trials, and that similarly-conducted trials of other products have shown NO differences at all for some products, that there is nothing wrong with the method per se. I have repeatedly stated that I have found no sonic differences at all with a spray-on cleaner whose producer made extravagent claims for it. I tried this product in exactly the same manner as the cable, and founfd it utterly worthless. So, now you have to explain how 'my head' not only can make differences in cable that appear only when the cable is in my system, but also refrain from doing so when the CD's are cleaned with the wonder-cleaner Optrix. The simpler explanation is that the products are responsible for what I hear or don't hear. Optrix made no difference whatsoever. The cables did. http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...sp?sku=AOPTRIX Do you understand how this presents a problem for your hypothesis? It's Occam's razor time! |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
On 7 Oct 2005 17:06:51 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 6 Oct 2005 02:38:23 GMT, wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Not important at this point in the argument. Pinkerton denies that I heard the difference. He cannot do that. He denies you heard a real difference. He doesn't deny that you *think* you heard a difference. Proof? He is correct, that is my position. Since you refuse to do a blind test, you have no way of knowing which is true. It doesn't matter. Do you understand that point? So, the truth doesn't matter to you. Understood. But *physically*, not at all necessarily equivalent. Not all beliefs are true. But in this case it does not matter. If it is IN PRINCIPLE impossible to distinguish between: A) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the listener B) A cable that ALWAYS sounds better because of something in the cable what difference does it make? The observed phenomena are the same. Rather than being impossible, it is in fact very easy to make such a distinction - you remove from the listener only the *knowledge* of which cable is connected. If they remain distinguishable, then it's something in the cable. Consider the computer in 2001, HAL. Let's say HAL predicts a component failure. Dave goes out to replace the component and finds that it is, in fact, defective. Is HAL right or not? HAL is right. Let's say HAL does this with a 100% success rate. Later, we find out that HAl had no way of knowing that the component would fail. Does that make HAL wrong? No, that makes us intensely curious as to the mechanism used in his predictions. Of course, we have to consider the number of times this happened, to determine the prability of it being just random chance. HAL would be able to provide exact numbers on this point. It does not matter! If the correlation is 100%, that's all that matters in science! Actually no, probability is also important. Sahame that you don't understand better how Science works. Ah, but if you did, we wouldn't even be having this debate.................... No, that is not where the answer lies, because things *other than* the actual sound can still highly influence the 'perception' -- enough so that one can still come to the 100% wrong conclusion about whether the sound is different or not. Read my lips: It does not matter. Perhaps not to you as part of a buying decision, but when you insist on claiming - as you have done - that it's due to some audible property of the cable, then you come unstuck. I'm claiming that if the perceived difference correlates exactly with the presence of the cable in my system over a period of many trials, and that similarly-conducted trials of other products have shown NO differences at all for some products, that there is nothing wrong with the method per se. I have repeatedly stated that I have found no sonic differences at all with a spray-on cleaner whose producer made extravagent claims for it. I tried this product in exactly the same manner as the cable, and founfd it utterly worthless. Fine. However, once you have made your initial decison, further trials tend merely to reinforce that decision, where there is no genuine physical difference. This is *basic* psychology, but you seem unable to understand exactly *why* drug tests have to be double-blind to have any validity. So, now you have to explain how 'my head' not only can make differences in cable that appear only when the cable is in my system, but also refrain from doing so when the CD's are cleaned with the wonder-cleaner Optrix. The simpler explanation is that the products are responsible for what I hear or don't hear. Actually no, the simple explanation is that you make a decision, and then you reinforce it, because your expectation swamps any subtle differences which *might* exist. This is precisely why all scientific comparisons remove human bias from the equation. It doesn't matter whether you decided there was a difference, or there was no difference. Optrix made no difference whatsoever. The cables did. Only in your head, not in the physical soundfield. http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...sp?sku=AOPTRIX Do you understand how this presents a problem for your hypothesis? The link is broken - much like your reasoning! :-) It's Occam's razor time! http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html Do you understand how this presents a problem for your hypothesis? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Free Ipods | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Nothing but 100% Pure Audiogon Customer Satisfaction | Marketplace | |||
FS: AMPS $25 SPEAKERS $19 PAIR - FREE SHIPPING | Pro Audio | |||
Market Your Product? | Audio Opinions | |||
Yet another DBT post | High End Audio |