First of all, let me say that I'm not so concerned any more *why* I
like tube amps and analog, and it certainly could be the distortion.
Recently I've been enjoying my iPod played into in-the-ear monitors.
I've got a modest IEM, the Shure E2C, but the sound is still musical
and very detailed, effortless detail. I've been enjoying it---and the
d/a and headphone amp in the iPod would *not* be the sort of thing I
think of as high-end, although they may very well have excellent specs.

Anyway, on the topic of blind tests, I have a concern about them, but I
will state the concern and give y'all a chance to address it.

Let me say first that I'm NOT using this as a justification for
super-high-end amps and cables and cd players. Let's say we have two
components, A & B, which may or may not sound the same. Let's *not* say
they are two cables.. let's say they are two amps with slightly
different frequency response or distortion. Or they are two codecs. Or
whatever, anything that we can all agree *may* or *may not* sound the
same.

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

Mike

wrote:
...
Anyway, on the topic of blind tests, I have a concern about them, but I
will state the concern and give y'all a chance to address it.

...

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

No, I would not agree that this is a misleading result. If you failed
to hear a difference, you failed to hear a difference. That's all a
null result says, no more, no less. A null result does not imply that
there is no difference, or that nobody else could hear the difference,
only that the subject didn't detect a difference. If it was because the
subject was listening for the wrong things, so be it.

Now, suppose that we ran another trial and this time you focused on the
bass and could reliably and repeatedly detect a difference between A &
B. We have a non null result. Yay! We can say with some certainty
that here's a difference between the components that can be detected by
listening alone. Once we've gotten this far we can start arguing over
which one is "better".

//Walt

In article ,
wrote:

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

In what way exactly is this more of a problem with double-blind testing?
You could also decide to compare A and B after stuffing your ears with
cotton, but that will seriously affect any comparative test, regardless
of the way it is conducted.

Regards,

jyh.

--
================================================== ===================
jean-yves herve' /\
Department of Computer Science \/ e-mail --
and Statistics /\
University of Rhode Island \/ Tel. -- (401) 874-4400
Kingston, RI 02881-0816 /\ Fax. -- (401) 874-4617
USA \/
================================================== ===================

On 22 Feb 2006 00:50:49 GMT, wrote:

Let's say we have two
components, A & B, which may or may not sound the same. Let's *not* say
they are two cables.. let's say they are two amps with slightly
different frequency response or distortion. Or they are two codecs. Or
whatever, anything that we can all agree *may* or *may not* sound the
same.

Fine.

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

Fine.

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

No, I'd say that you ran the test incompetently, due to not using
full-spectrum music for the comparison. I have a whole selection of
favourite tracks that I use for listening to different aspects of
sound when comparing audio gear. All the way from organ music and
heavy drumming, to delicate cymbal brushwork, to single female voice
to choral to full orchestra to jazz ensemble. Even pink noise and
clicks for a *really* sensitive comparison.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

No. I would only agree that you have misinterpreted the result.

A negative ABX test means only one thing: that the subject could not
reliably distinguish between the two sounds in that test. We cannot
assume that the subject would always fail to distinguish those two
sounds. And we cannot assume that other subjects would fail to
distinguish those two sounds.

Negative results don't tell us much. Positive results tell us more. A
positive result (verified, which in practice probably means two
positive results) tells us that the two sounds really are
distinguishable. (That's why we keep asking, where are the positive
results? It is their absence that is really telling.)

Now, let's go back to your example, and ask a question: Why was the
subject only paying attention to the treble? Could it be that, during
his open listening, he thought he heard a distinct difference in the
treble? If so, then this negative test does tell us something: It tells
us that the difference he thought he heard may be illusory.

We could make your test better by providing some training to our
subject. Since we know that the amps differ in bass response, we could
use an equalizer to exaggerate that difference, and let the subject
practice on that first. This would help him focus on the real
difference.

bob

In article ,
wrote:

First of all, let me say that I'm not so concerned any more *why* I
like tube amps and analog, and it certainly could be the distortion.
Recently I've been enjoying my iPod played into in-the-ear monitors.
I've got a modest IEM, the Shure E2C, but the sound is still musical
and very detailed, effortless detail. I've been enjoying it---and the
d/a and headphone amp in the iPod would *not* be the sort of thing I
think of as high-end, although they may very well have excellent specs.

Anyway, on the topic of blind tests, I have a concern about them, but I
will state the concern and give y'all a chance to address it.

Let me say first that I'm NOT using this as a justification for
super-high-end amps and cables and cd players. Let's say we have two
components, A & B, which may or may not sound the same. Let's *not* say
they are two cables.. let's say they are two amps with slightly
different frequency response or distortion. Or they are two codecs. Or
whatever, anything that we can all agree *may* or *may not* sound the
same.

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

Let's say A & B do sound different,

established how?

and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

Mike

I don't understand how you could only listen to the treble. Let's
assume you can. Then your listening experience would be that of
someone with a large bass and midrange deficiency in hearing. No
one is claiming that audibly different components will sound
different to the hearing impaired.

wrote in message
...

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

All experiments produce some erroneous results. That's why they are usually
done repeatedly with different people.

wrote:
First of all, let me say that I'm not so concerned any more *why* I
like tube amps and analog, and it certainly could be the distortion.

I don't like tubes at all. Analogue is not in principle different in
quality to digital, if both are top-end systems. 15 or 30 IPS tape is
phenomenal, and so is digital high-end (studio) stuff.

Recently I've been enjoying my iPod played into in-the-ear monitors.
I've got a modest IEM, the Shure E2C, but the sound is still musical
and very detailed, effortless detail. I've been enjoying it---and the
d/a and headphone amp in the iPod would *not* be the sort of thing I
think of as high-end, although they may very well have excellent specs.

I have a Sony MZ-R50 minidisc and Sony MDR-D77 Eggos. The system sounds
very good. Not as good as my Stax Lambdas, but very enjoyable. The
Eggos have evaporated diamond diaphragms.

Anyway, on the topic of blind tests, I have a concern about them, but I
will state the concern and give y'all a chance to address it.

This has been discussed before. A lot.

Let me say first that I'm NOT using this as a justification for
super-high-end amps and cables and cd players. Let's say we have two
components, A & B, which may or may not sound the same. Let's *not* say
they are two cables.. let's say they are two amps with slightly
different frequency response or distortion. Or they are two codecs. Or
whatever, anything that we can all agree *may* or *may not* sound the
same.

'Sound the same' is problematic. To whom? Under what conditions? With
or without alcohol? Is the 'auditor' experienced or a novice?

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

I can hear many more differences than that. Attack. Sustain. Imaging.
Coherence.

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

This is not very well formulated.


Mike

On 23 Feb 2006 00:31:29 GMT, "bob" wrote:

A negative ABX test means only one thing: that the subject could not
reliably distinguish between the two sounds in that test.

Forgive the pedantry, but I don't think it actually means even that
much. I would say it means that the test has failed to provide
sufficient evidence to conclude that the subject could reliably
distinguish between the two sounds in that test.

Do sufficient identical tests with the same result and we might well
be able to justify your stronger conclusion.

Hello again Mike,

wrote:
(snipped a lot)
Let me say first that I'm NOT using this as a justification for
super-high-end amps and cables and cd players. Let's say we have two
components, A & B, which may or may not sound the same. Let's *not* say
they are two cables.. let's say they are two amps with slightly
different frequency response or distortion. Or they are two codecs. Or
whatever, anything that we can all agree *may* or *may not* sound the
same.

Fine, there exists some kind of audible difference I presume. Yes?

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

Only "null" when compared with someone listening carefully to the full
range of the reproduced performance. Perhaps the bass range has less
importance to your personal preferences. What would have distracted
you to focus upon the treble? Could it be that you were finding a
difference in this range that you are particularly sensitive to? Any
variations in the reproduction from being natural or transparent are
normally considered objecitonable; even if they sound engaging or
desirable, it is not accurate.

In my humble opinion, when it comes to selecting and building a sound
reproduction system for yourself... the judgement of whatever is
correct should be your own. You should not be concerned with gaining a
consensus of correctness, or considering some other consensus of
correctness. This is a hobby, or passion that should cater to your
very own personal preferences. Spec sheets, price tags, exotic
technology, as well as the freely broadcast opinions, surveys, tests,
etc... is all rather interesting but really shouldn't govern or skew
your choices at all.

Phil Simpson

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 00:50:49 GMT, wrote:

Let's say we have two
components, A & B, which may or may not sound the same. Let's *not* say
they are two cables.. let's say they are two amps with slightly
different frequency response or distortion. Or they are two codecs. Or
whatever, anything that we can all agree *may* or *may not* sound the
same.

Fine.

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

Fine.

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

No, I'd say that you ran the test incompetently, due to not using
full-spectrum music for the comparison. I have a whole selection of
favourite tracks that I use for listening to different aspects of
sound when comparing audio gear. All the way from organ music and
heavy drumming, to delicate cymbal brushwork, to single female voice
to choral to full orchestra to jazz ensemble. Even pink noise and
clicks for a *really* sensitive comparison.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Okay, thanks everyone for the explanation. I guess you would say,
Stewart, that audio scientists are pretty well aware of what music to
use and how to train their listeners. In other words, the possible
difficult with ABX testing---namely, the possibility that subjects
don't listen to the right things---is not, in practice, a major
problem.

And null results are nothing more than null results, perhaps
*suggesting* that two compoments A & B are difficult to distinguish
under those conditions, but not eliminating that anyone can hear them.

With regard to cables, we have so many null results, and such an
bovious absense of positive results, that one can be confident about
their inaudibility.

Is this all how you would state it?

Mike

bob wrote:
wrote:

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

No. I would only agree that you have misinterpreted the result.

A negative ABX test means only one thing: that the subject could not
reliably distinguish between the two sounds in that test. We cannot
assume that the subject would always fail to distinguish those two
sounds. And we cannot assume that other subjects would fail to
distinguish those two sounds.

Negative results don't tell us much. Positive results tell us more. A
positive result (verified, which in practice probably means two
positive results) tells us that the two sounds really are
distinguishable. (That's why we keep asking, where are the positive
results? It is their absence that is really telling.)

Now, let's go back to your example, and ask a question: Why was the
subject only paying attention to the treble? Could it be that, during
his open listening, he thought he heard a distinct difference in the
treble? If so, then this negative test does tell us something: It tells
us that the difference he thought he heard may be illusory.

We could make your test better by providing some training to our
subject. Since we know that the amps differ in bass response, we could
use an equalizer to exaggerate that difference, and let the subject
practice on that first. This would help him focus on the real
difference.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

Now, on to one more question.

My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

So what if two systems A and B do audibly differ in their presentation
of these phrase-long qualities. What if we test them using ultra-short
snippets, however. Is this a valid test? Under what conditions will it
reveal an audible distinction between the systems?

I know I may have phrased this in an unclear way, but go ahead and give
me the explanation. Even though I responding to your post, bob, I
invite Stewart and any other interested party to give me an explanation
and/or clarify my language.

Mike

wrote:
My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

Note: You are assuming your conclusion here.

So what if two systems A and B do audibly differ in their presentation
of these phrase-long qualities. What if we test them using ultra-short
snippets, however. Is this a valid test?

Yes.

Under what conditions will it
reveal an audible distinction between the systems?

Under all conditions (assuming the proper test protocols are followed).


The problem is that I don't accept your assumption. Neither, I suspect,
would anyone in the psychoacoustics field. So far as we know (and we
know plenty), there is no difference that you can hear in an entire
phrase that cannot also be heard in some fraction of that phrase. If
you doubt this, then it's up to you to demonstrate that some such
difference actually exists. You're bucking the paradigm, here, and the
burden's on you.

bob

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 23 Feb 2006 00:31:29 GMT, "bob" wrote:

A negative ABX test means only one thing: that the subject could not
reliably distinguish between the two sounds in that test.

Forgive the pedantry, but I don't think it actually means even that
much. I would say it means that the test has failed to provide
sufficient evidence to conclude that the subject could reliably
distinguish between the two sounds in that test.

Do sufficient identical tests with the same result and we might well
be able to justify your stronger conclusion.

His conclusion was that the subject couldn't reliably distinguish
the two sounds in *that* test. It doesn't rule out that performance
could be better on a subsequent test.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

On 24 Feb 2006 00:40:24 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 00:50:49 GMT, wrote:

Let's say we have two
components, A & B, which may or may not sound the same. Let's *not* say
they are two cables.. let's say they are two amps with slightly
different frequency response or distortion. Or they are two codecs. Or
whatever, anything that we can all agree *may* or *may not* sound the
same.

Fine.

First, in my experience, I can choose what to listen for, in listening
to music. I can listen for the sounds of instruments, the quality of
the dance invoked by the rhythm, the feelings of the music, the sound
of distortion, the treble, the bass, and so on.

Fine.

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

No, I'd say that you ran the test incompetently, due to not using
full-spectrum music for the comparison. I have a whole selection of
favourite tracks that I use for listening to different aspects of
sound when comparing audio gear. All the way from organ music and
heavy drumming, to delicate cymbal brushwork, to single female voice
to choral to full orchestra to jazz ensemble. Even pink noise and
clicks for a *really* sensitive comparison.

Okay, thanks everyone for the explanation. I guess you would say,
Stewart, that audio scientists are pretty well aware of what music to
use and how to train their listeners. In other words, the possible
difficult with ABX testing---namely, the possibility that subjects
don't listen to the right things---is not, in practice, a major
problem.

Yes.

And null results are nothing more than null results, perhaps
*suggesting* that two compoments A & B are difficult to distinguish
under those conditions, but not eliminating that anyone can hear them.

That's true, although the available evidence suggests that those who
do claim superior hearing acuity, invarably crash and burn when put to
the test. This does suggest that there are no real 'Golden Ears', and
that differences among cables in particular are simply *not* audible
to any human.

If you want the best possible chance, use children brought up in rural
areas. They'll have the highest sensitivity and the widest frequency
range. Self-important middle-aged hi-fi magazine reviewers and 'high
end' dealers are just about the *worst* choice! :-)

With regard to cables, we have so many null results, and such an
bovious absense of positive results, that one can be confident about
their inaudibility.

Is this all how you would state it?

That's pretty much it, and also applies to mainstream amplifiers and
CD players.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 24 Feb 2006 00:41:00 GMT, wrote:

My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

So use a long-term test (shrug). Nothing in the rules to preclude it,
it's simply that *decades* of exprience by people who do this for a
living (the R&D guys at Revel, B&W etc) suggests that long-term
listeing is *less* sensitive to small differences. If you can prove
this to be incorrect, then good for you.

So what if two systems A and B do audibly differ in their presentation
of these phrase-long qualities. What if we test them using ultra-short
snippets, however. Is this a valid test? Under what conditions will it
reveal an audible distinction between the systems?

It's a valid test, and the weight of available evidence suggests that
your 'experience' is incorrect. The way to test this is to do a
long-term comparison - but it must still be level-matched and blind.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Listening for a few minutes with highly repetitive material is best.

wrote:
bob wrote:
wrote:

Let's say A & B do sound different, and the difference between A & B is
in the bass. But during the test I only listen to the treble. So we
have the null result. Would you not agree this is a misleading result?

No. I would only agree that you have misinterpreted the result.

A negative ABX test means only one thing: that the subject could not
reliably distinguish between the two sounds in that test. We cannot
assume that the subject would always fail to distinguish those two
sounds. And we cannot assume that other subjects would fail to
distinguish those two sounds.

Negative results don't tell us much. Positive results tell us more. A
positive result (verified, which in practice probably means two
positive results) tells us that the two sounds really are
distinguishable. (That's why we keep asking, where are the positive
results? It is their absence that is really telling.)

Now, let's go back to your example, and ask a question: Why was the
subject only paying attention to the treble? Could it be that, during
his open listening, he thought he heard a distinct difference in the
treble? If so, then this negative test does tell us something: It tells
us that the difference he thought he heard may be illusory.

We could make your test better by providing some training to our
subject. Since we know that the amps differ in bass response, we could
use an equalizer to exaggerate that difference, and let the subject
practice on that first. This would help him focus on the real
difference.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

Now, on to one more question.

My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

So what if two systems A and B do audibly differ in their presentation
of these phrase-long qualities. What if we test them using ultra-short
snippets, however. Is this a valid test? Under what conditions will it
reveal an audible distinction between the systems?

I know I may have phrased this in an unclear way, but go ahead and give
me the explanation. Even though I responding to your post, bob, I
invite Stewart and any other interested party to give me an explanation
and/or clarify my language.

Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Feb 2006 00:40:24 GMT, wrote:

With regard to cables, we have so many null results, and such an
bovious absense of positive results, that one can be confident about
their inaudibility.

Is this all how you would state it?

That's pretty much it, and also applies to mainstream amplifiers and
CD players.

Except for the ones that don't. Some of the ones that don't are the
result of incompetent design or defective manufacture. Others are the
result of what I would call "competent but misguided design"--like
cables with such extreme RLC values that they really do alter the
signal enough to be heard. There are always provisos about when things
sound the same, and when we leave them out we leave ourselves open to
the "everything sounds the same" canard.

bob

bob wrote:
wrote:
My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

Note: You are assuming your conclusion here.



I can see where you get that idea, but let me
clarify.

I'm saying that I'm aware of this "thing," this
"quality" of the reproduction. Let's call it
quality A.

Quality A might be something like the relationship
of the articulation to the phrasing.

I can only become *aware*, *conscious*, of quality
A, *in this described form*, by listening to a
long phrase.

Now, what I understand that you are telling me, is
that whatever differences in sound contribute to
this quality, can also be heard in much shorter
phrases.

I understand that this might be true, but what I'm
suggesting is that I won't be aware of them in the
same way. I simply *can't* be aware of the feeling
of a phrase if I'm not hearing the whole
phrase. However, I *can* be aware of differences
in tonal balance, attack, detail, etc. in short
snippets.

So what I understand you are saying is that any
difference which contributes to quality A, will be
audible in some form in the short snippet.

Is this how you would state it?



So what if two systems A and B do audibly differ in their presentation
of these phrase-long qualities. What if we test them using ultra-short
snippets, however. Is this a valid test?

Yes.

Under what conditions will it
reveal an audible distinction between the systems?

Under all conditions (assuming the proper test protocols are followed).


The problem is that I don't accept your assumption.

I'm not assuming anything other than: I can't be
aware of the quality of a phrase without hearing a
whole phrase. I'm willing to accept that whatever
signals contribute to that quality *can* be heard
in snippets. However I have some more questions
about this, but let's just start here and see if
you agree with how I've phrased it.



Neither, I suspect,
would anyone in the psychoacoustics field. So far as we know (and we
know plenty), there is no difference that you can hear in an entire
phrase that cannot also be heard in some fraction of that phrase. If
you doubt this, then it's up to you to demonstrate that some such
difference actually exists. You're bucking the paradigm, here, and the
burden's on you.

bob

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Feb 2006 00:41:00 GMT, wrote:

My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

So use a long-term test (shrug). Nothing in the rules to preclude it,
it's simply that *decades* of exprience by people who do this for a
living (the R&D guys at Revel, B&W etc) suggests that long-term
listeing is *less* sensitive to small differences. If you can prove
this to be incorrect, then good for you.

So what if two systems A and B do audibly differ in their presentation
of these phrase-long qualities. What if we test them using ultra-short
snippets, however. Is this a valid test? Under what conditions will it
reveal an audible distinction between the systems?

It's a valid test, and the weight of available evidence suggests that
your 'experience' is incorrect. The way to test this is to do a
long-term comparison - but it must still be level-matched and blind.

As I described more extensively in my post to Bob, my experience is
that certain qualities of whole phrases can become conscious, in that
specific form, only from listening to a specific phrase. In that sense
my "experience" is not incorrect, it's just describing my experience.
I'll ask you the same thing I'm asking him:

Are you saying that any audible difference which I might describe in
phrase-long terms, translate into an audible difference in "snippets"..
which I would describe, or become conscious of, in some other form? In
other words, listening to a whole phrase, I might say I'm aware of
"phrasing", but listening to a snippet, I would describe the same
difference as "attack"? Is this approximately the right idea?

Mike

wrote:
bob wrote:
wrote:
My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

Note: You are assuming your conclusion here.



I can see where you get that idea, but let me
clarify.

I'm saying that I'm aware of this "thing," this
"quality" of the reproduction. Let's call it
quality A.

Quality A might be something like the relationship
of the articulation to the phrasing.

I can only become *aware*, *conscious*, of quality
A, *in this described form*, by listening to a
long phrase.

Now, what I understand that you are telling me, is
that whatever differences in sound contribute to
this quality, can also be heard in much shorter
phrases.

I understand that this might be true, but what I'm
suggesting is that I won't be aware of them in the
same way.

But if all you're trying to do is answer the question, "Can I hear a
difference?" then it doesn't matter that you won't be aware of them in
the same way. And if you're trying to answer a question other than
"Can I hear a difference?"--like, for example, "What difference do I
hear?"--then a DBT in which you listen only to very short snippets of
sound may not be the right tool for the job.

I simply *can't* be aware of the feeling
of a phrase if I'm not hearing the whole
phrase. However, I *can* be aware of differences
in tonal balance, attack, detail, etc. in short
snippets.

So what I understand you are saying is that any
difference which contributes to quality A, will be
audible in some form in the short snippet.

Is this how you would state it?

Yeah, because at bottom, whatever you're hearing when you listen to
that whole phrase has to be the result of differences in level,
frequency, and/or timing at particular moments in that phrase. Those
are broad categories, but I think that covers everything, doesn't it?
And level, frequency and timing differences are quite detectable in
DBTs.

bob

bob wrote:
wrote:
bob wrote:
wrote:
My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

Note: You are assuming your conclusion here.



I can see where you get that idea, but let me
clarify.

I'm saying that I'm aware of this "thing," this
"quality" of the reproduction. Let's call it
quality A.

Quality A might be something like the relationship
of the articulation to the phrasing.

I can only become *aware*, *conscious*, of quality
A, *in this described form*, by listening to a
long phrase.

Now, what I understand that you are telling me, is
that whatever differences in sound contribute to
this quality, can also be heard in much shorter
phrases.

I understand that this might be true, but what I'm
suggesting is that I won't be aware of them in the
same way.

But if all you're trying to do is answer the question, "Can I hear a
difference?" then it doesn't matter that you won't be aware of them in
the same way. And if you're trying to answer a question other than
"Can I hear a difference?"--like, for example, "What difference do I
hear?"--then a DBT in which you listen only to very short snippets of
sound may not be the right tool for the job.

I simply *can't* be aware of the feeling
of a phrase if I'm not hearing the whole
phrase. However, I *can* be aware of differences
in tonal balance, attack, detail, etc. in short
snippets.

So what I understand you are saying is that any
difference which contributes to quality A, will be
audible in some form in the short snippet.

Is this how you would state it?

Yeah, because at bottom, whatever you're hearing when you listen to
that whole phrase has to be the result of differences in level,
frequency, and/or timing at particular moments in that phrase. Those
are broad categories, but I think that covers everything, doesn't it?
And level, frequency and timing differences are quite detectable in
DBTs.

Okay, I follow you.

Now let's say we have two snippets or test tones: A & B. They differ
somewhat in level, frequency, and/or timing.

If they differ a lot, then we know the difference can be audible. If
they differ a miniscule amount (e.g. two cables), we have pretty strong
evidence the difference is not audible.

Somewhere in-between are the set of differences which may or may not be
audible.. we have to actually run the test to find out, and we have to
understand that test conditions and choice of subjects will affect the
result.

Let's say I am the subject in a quick-switch test between A & B. For
the difference to be audible to me, several things have to happen:

1. The ear (physical structure and aural nerve) has to be sensitive
enough to detect
the difference.

2. The resolution of the memory store has to be good enough, and the
internal comparison to memory accurate enough, to reveal the
difference.

3. I have to become conscious of the difference.

Would you not agree that all three things have to be true in order to
hear a difference?

Mike

On 25 Feb 2006 17:30:24 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Feb 2006 00:40:24 GMT, wrote:

With regard to cables, we have so many null results, and such an
bovious absense of positive results, that one can be confident about
their inaudibility.

Is this all how you would state it?

That's pretty much it, and also applies to mainstream amplifiers and
CD players.

Except for the ones that don't. Some of the ones that don't are the
result of incompetent design or defective manufacture. Others are the
result of what I would call "competent but misguided design"--like
cables with such extreme RLC values that they really do alter the
signal enough to be heard. There are always provisos about when things
sound the same, and when we leave them out we leave ourselves open to
the "everything sounds the same" canard.

That's why I specified 'mainstream', by which I mean properly
engineered bit otherwise unexceptional items, exemplified by the
products of say Rotel, Yamaha, Denon, Pioneer, Sony, Arcam and
ASudiolab (among others too numerous to mention). I very specifically
do *not* mean so-called 'high end' stuff 'designed' by self-acclaimed
'gurus' with little or no technical background, vide Julian Vereker,
Roy Gandy and Peter Qvortrup. Let's not even go near George Cardas....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006 17:38:08 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Feb 2006 00:41:00 GMT, wrote:

My own experience is that some qualities of an audio system need
listening for some time to discern. Normally I would like to hear an
entire phrase, at least, to evaluate how the articulation is presented
and whether that makes musical sense in relation to the phrase.

I don't feel that I can be aware of qualities such as these in a
2-second snippet such as Arny uses.

So use a long-term test (shrug). Nothing in the rules to preclude it,
it's simply that *decades* of exprience by people who do this for a
living (the R&D guys at Revel, B&W etc) suggests that long-term
listeing is *less* sensitive to small differences. If you can prove
this to be incorrect, then good for you.

So what if two systems A and B do audibly differ in their presentation
of these phrase-long qualities. What if we test them using ultra-short
snippets, however. Is this a valid test? Under what conditions will it
reveal an audible distinction between the systems?

It's a valid test, and the weight of available evidence suggests that
your 'experience' is incorrect. The way to test this is to do a
long-term comparison - but it must still be level-matched and blind.

As I described more extensively in my post to Bob, my experience is
that certain qualities of whole phrases can become conscious, in that
specific form, only from listening to a specific phrase. In that sense
my "experience" is not incorrect, it's just describing my experience.
I'll ask you the same thing I'm asking him:

Actually no, you're describing an anecdote, you provide no evidence
that you can *reliably and repeatably* do this when you don't *know*
what's playing.

I think that you think I'm claiming I hear a *difference* between two
things in this quality. I'm saying something much simpler.. listening
to a single device, this is one facet of musical experience which can
only become conscious by listening to a whole phrase.


Are you saying that any audible difference which I might describe in
phrase-long terms, translate into an audible difference in "snippets"..
which I would describe, or become conscious of, in some other form? In
other words, listening to a whole phrase, I might say I'm aware of
"phrasing", but listening to a snippet, I would describe the same
difference as "attack"? Is this approximately the right idea?

The idea is that there's nothing that you can *reliably and
repeatably* identify in a long listening session, which will not be
equally or better discerned in a 'snippet' comparison.

Right, I understand that's the assertion. See my post to Bob, but I
have the same question for you:

To be aware of a difference, does not all the following have to happen:

1. The ear/aural nerve must resolve the difference

2. The neural memory store of presentation A must have sufficient
resolution, and the comparison to presentation B must allow sufficient
resolution to identify the difference

3. I must become conscious of the information "computed" by the
comparison function

I'm sorry if my language is a bit ambigious here; I am not very
familiar with the neural models of ear/brain functioning. I would like
to go to the Caltech library again and get some books on these topics,
but I would appreciate any explanation that you feel interested in
giving.

Mike