Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:
I heard it, every time. Less noise.



(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
No, you didn't. You just *thought* you did. Please understand that the
'green pen' effect is a myth, in fact it all started as a practical
joke. It doesn't do anything, because it *cannot* do anything.

Try it again under blind conditions.


Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions. Otherwise
your suggestion is nothing more than a red herring.
Regards,
Mike
  #243   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

Mkuller wrote:
(Michael

Scarpitti) wrote:
I heard it, every time. Less noise.



(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
No, you didn't. You just *thought* you did. Please understand that the
'green pen' effect is a myth, in fact it all started as a practical
joke. It doesn't do anything, because it *cannot* do anything.

Try it again under blind conditions.


Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions.


Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not.


Otherwise
your suggestion is nothing more than a red herring.


Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do.
Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the
whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place.





--
-S.
______
"You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with
intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH!

  #245   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

On 10 Oct 2003 01:25:17 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...


If your attitude is that "I
heard it, so it *must* be real", then I can only say that :

a) You are just plain wrong

b) You have no interest in advancing your knowledge of Hi-Fi music
reproduction

c) Any time you'd like to drop in, I'll be happy to demonstrate that
you most certainly did *not* hear any substantial difference


That's an epistemelogical impossibility. I heard what I heard. I heard
it repeatedly and consistently. Bias can't do that. Unless, of course,
bias is so sophisticated it can vary its intensity and show up, all on
cue.


When attempting to use big words, it's handy to know what they mean.
It is most certainly possible to hear things which have no physical
existence - we do it every night in dreams. It's also perfectly
possible to hear differences in audio gear which have no physical
existence - I have demonstrated this many times with 'false sighted'
AB tests where 'B' was never switched in. This didn't stop the
audience duly reporting the extra 'air' and 'inner detail' of a valve
amplifier which was never connected!

Bias can most certainly do that, inded that's a *classic* example of
how bias works. You think you hear something one time, so the next
time you listen, of course you hear it again, because you *know*
what's connected. This is precisely *why* DBTs were invented. Your
continued denial of this well-known problem is extremely naive, and
goes to suggest that (b) above is your main problem.

Have you not heard of the classic hi-fi sales technique, best
encapsulated in 'The Emperor's New Clothes'?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #246   Report Post  
MarkZimmerman
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough

for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions.


Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not.


Otherwise
your suggestion is nothing more than a red herring.


Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do.
Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the
whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place.


-S.


I seem to remember reading in Stereophile that the CD Stoplight green ink pen
was one of their recommended commponents. I BOUGHT 5! And, eventually
realized that I could here no difference. At first I thought it might be my
Stereo system. but, hell, it cost me $10,000 in '88 and was a great bargain
with all components being reviewed in at least 1 magazine if not several.
Sound is still fantastic and I long ago gave up on CD Stoplight. UGH!

Best,

Mark Allen Zimmerman * Chicago
  #247   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

mkuller wrote:
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough

for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions.



Steven Sullivan wrote:
Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not.


Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to
others for a while.

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the
result of biases). "Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very
different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source
may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions. Here's
why:

Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right
brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the
treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the
same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with the
test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers
behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the test.)


So he's listening to the two CDs A and B, and then X is put on. Now he must
take his fading memories of A and B (larger differences like loudness and
frequency response seem to be eaisier to hold in memory for a little longer)
and compare to X. His brain switches from relaxed listening to decision-making
mode (left brain) as he struggles to compare X to A and B as the memories fade
quickly. He must make a decision. Now. The memories are fading fast. Did he
really hear more noise on A? Now what? Quick. Pick one. This is not nearly the
same experience as "relaxed listening to music".

Is Mr. Scarpitti a good ABX performer? It appears that individuals vary widely
in their ABX abilities (like any other human testing ability). He has had no
specific training other than some sighted listening. He may or may not be able
to identify the same things he heard sighted under very different conditions
(blind test) or he may not. You seem to feel this blind test is definitive - I
call it flawed (unlike the controlled tests used in clinical research) and
questionable.

Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do.


I believe I understand "what it can do" and that is show a lot of null results
when there are subtle audible differences between compared components.

Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the
whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place.


Our assumptions begin at the different ends of the spectrum. Because you do
not have a mechanism you understand for an audible effect here (as with
comparing two 'competent' amps), you assume there can be no audible
differences. And your blind test shows null results which reinforce your
preconception.

I go in with no assumptions and perform (what I consider careful, methodical,
long tem) observational listening. When I hear differences that I cannot
explain, I perform more listening or have other experienced listeners join me
to see what they hear. Having no explanation in engineering or scientific terms
does not concern me because I have seen that measured test results often do not
correspond with experienced listeners' reports (JA's Stereophile correlations).


To tie thais back to the title of the thread, you and some other objectivists
here (certainly not all) seem to have a very narrow, rigid view on things you
hear (or don't) in audio that do not correspond with what the rest of us
audiophiles experience (even understanding the concepts of preconceptions and
bias). You have Audio Critic to reinforce your views and I'll read the other
audio publications that reinforce mine. It is not likely we will ever agree
here.
Regards,
Mike
  #248   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

On 10 Oct 2003 18:46:28 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the
result of biases). "Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very
different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source
may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions. Here's
why:

Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right
brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the
treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the
same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with the
test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers
behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the test.)

So he's listening to the two CDs A and B, and then X is put on. Now he must
take his fading memories of A and B (larger differences like loudness and
frequency response seem to be eaisier to hold in memory for a little longer)
and compare to X. His brain switches from relaxed listening to decision-making
mode (left brain) as he struggles to compare X to A and B as the memories fade
quickly. He must make a decision. Now. The memories are fading fast. Did he
really hear more noise on A? Now what? Quick. Pick one. This is not nearly the
same experience as "relaxed listening to music".


As ever, you distort reality to fit your agenda. There is no time
limit for such a test, and further, there is no more reliance on
memory than there is in a sighted comparison. Indeed, there is much
*less* reliance on memory when an ABX switchbox is used.

If testing is stressful per se, then a sighted test is no more or less
stressful than a blind test, which can most certainly be carried out
in a relaxed and long-term manner. In fact, I have done this myself,
since I'm not involving others when I do DBTs for my own purposes. I
have however found that small differences which I could identify using
fast-switching techniques, were inaudible in such long-term testing.

Is Mr. Scarpitti a good ABX performer? It appears that individuals vary widely
in their ABX abilities (like any other human testing ability). He has had no
specific training other than some sighted listening. He may or may not be able
to identify the same things he heard sighted under very different conditions
(blind test) or he may not. You seem to feel this blind test is definitive - I
call it flawed (unlike the controlled tests used in clinical research) and
questionable.


It is however vastly superior to *any* sighted test, for reasons given
ad nauseam.

Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do.


I believe I understand "what it can do" and that is show a lot of null results
when there are subtle audible differences between compared components.


No, it simply shows null results when there are *no* audible
differences. This occurs among many components which you fondly
believe *should* sound different (like cables), but it just ain't so.

The green pen is a classic example, since it basically *cannot* make a
difference.

Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the
whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place.

Our assumptions begin at the different ends of the spectrum. Because you do
not have a mechanism you understand for an audible effect here (as with
comparing two 'competent' amps), you assume there can be no audible
differences. And your blind test shows null results which reinforce your
preconception.

I go in with no assumptions and perform (what I consider careful, methodical,
long tem) observational listening.


No you don't, you perform sighted listening, and simply *ignore* its
readily demonstrable fatal flaws.

When I hear differences that I cannot
explain, I perform more listening or have other experienced listeners join me
to see what they hear. Having no explanation in engineering or scientific terms
does not concern me because I have seen that measured test results often do not
correspond with experienced listeners' reports (JA's Stereophile correlations).


You will however *never* find a non-sighted test which will show any
difference due to the use of a green pen.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #249   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

(Mkuller) wrote in message ...
mkuller wrote:
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough

for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions.



Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not.


Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to
others for a while.

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the
result of biases). "Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very
different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source
may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions. Here's
why:

Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right
brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the
treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the
same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with the
test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers
behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the test.)



That's not how I did it. I put on a CD, listening through my Stax
Lambdas and my power amp. I listened to familiar music, and did not
know what, if any, change might occur. Then I painted the sides per
the instructions. I replaced the CD and heard less noise. I tried this
again with several CDs, and most (but not all) followed suit. I got
hold of second copy of one of these CDs, and tried a comparison test.
I heard a difference.

Later, I found a green platter that you place into the drawer. I tried
it, and found a similar, but milder effect to using the pen. Since the
pen was expensive and messy, I quit using it. I then saw a spray-on
cleaner treatment that made similar claims. I tried it and heard
no change.
  #251   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:


On 10 Oct 2003 18:46:28 GMT,
(Mkuller) wrote:

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive

enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the
result of biases). "Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very
different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source
may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions.

Here's
why:

Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right
brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the
treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the
same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with

the
test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers
behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the

test.)


Just for the record the testers did not interfere with the subjects in the
Sunshine experiment. One of the subject decided at a later date that he would
cry "interference" even though he admitted the day following the experiment he
had failed fair and square.



So he's listening to the two CDs A and B, and then X is put on. Now he must
take his fading memories of A and B (larger differences like loudness and
frequency response seem to be eaisier to hold in memory for a little longer)
and compare to X. His brain switches from relaxed listening to

decision-making
mode (left brain) as he struggles to compare X to A and B as the memories

fade
quickly. He must make a decision. Now. The memories are fading fast. Did

he
really hear more noise on A? Now what? Quick. Pick one. This is not nearly

the
same experience as "relaxed listening to music".


In the first round of the Sunshine experiment the subject listened to one or
the other amplifier with the only constriant that he was not able to tell by
visual inspection which device was driving the speakers because the amplifier
terminals were covered with an opaque cloth. This conditions were identical to
thosa employed by the subject in his own system in daily use and he used his
personally selected programs.

Indeed he only had to identify whether hi own amplifier was driving his
personal reference speakers. After "long term" exposure he only had to
recognize his own amplifer when he heard it. If those 'subtle' differences that
can only be heard with long term exposure (and long term memory, I would guess)
were acoustically real it should have been easy for him to recognize his own
gear.

It seems unlikey that an inexpensive interloper would suddenly sound exactly
like his personal kit (if I may use the British term) if those subtle long term
differences were acoustically real and not a part of personal bias.

IMO the situation boils down to a subjectivist claim that they can run a mile
10 seconds faster than any human but only with long-tern training (fair enough)
but not if anyone is watching or using a stop watch.


As ever, you distort reality to fit your agenda. There is no time
limit for such a test, and further, there is no more reliance on
memory than there is in a sighted comparison. Indeed, there is much
*less* reliance on memory when an ABX switchbox is used.

If testing is stressful per se, then a sighted test is no more or less
stressful than a blind test, which can most certainly be carried out
in a relaxed and long-term manner.


Indeed I have conducted a long term ABX test where the subject has 5-weeks with
the experimental set-up was installed in his personal reference system for
program selection and training.


In fact, I have done this myself,
since I'm not involving others when I do DBTs for my own purposes. I
have however found that small differences which I could identify using
fast-switching techniques, were inaudible in such long-term testing.


Indeed. And my experiment in "Flying Blind" (Audio magazine) showed that an
individual who was unable to identify a certain level of distortion (known to
be audible in ABX testing) under 16-weeks of open listening was able to
correctly identify same with 6-second intervals with ABX testing.

If anything, DBT with proximate switching is overly sensitive to any kind of
acoustic difference subtle or otherwise.


Is Mr. Scarpitti a good ABX performer? It appears that individuals vary

widely
in their ABX abilities (like any other human testing ability). He has had

no
specific training other than some sighted listening. He may or may not be

able
to identify the same things he heard sighted under very different conditions
(blind test) or he may not.


If the differences have an acoustical basis he will be able to more reliably
identify them under ABX conditions, as evidenced above.


You seem to feel this blind test is definitive
- I
call it flawed (unlike the controlled tests used in clinical research) and
questionable.


It is however vastly superior to *any* sighted test, for reasons given
ad nauseam.

Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do.


I believe I understand "what it can do" and that is show a lot of null

results
when there are subtle audible differences between compared components.


Why not establish those differences you claim are audible actually exist? Many
have claimed same but none have conclusively demonstrated that they actually
exist with even modest bias controls implemented.

IMO it's time that some subjectivist stop arguing that extant evidence is
flawed and present some of their own.

Subjectivists routinely claim that known methods 'mask' differences yet have no
evidence that this is true; and they have offered no contradictory evidence
that has any modicum of bias control over known bias mechanisms.

I have on multiple occasions attempted to verify the claims, under every
possible level of sensitivity including the claimants personal reference
systems under long-term training with significant travel paid by myself.

But the subjectivist simply argue that they are right and everybody else is
wrong without offering a single shred of evidence of their own.



No, it simply shows null results when there are *no* audible
differences. This occurs among many components which you fondly
believe *should* sound different (like cables), but it just ain't so.

The green pen is a classic example, since it basically *cannot* make a
difference.

Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the
whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place.

Our assumptions begin at the different ends of the spectrum. Because you do
not have a mechanism you understand for an audible effect here (as with
comparing two 'competent' amps), you assume there can be no audible
differences. And your blind test shows null results which reinforce your
preconception.


Actually those tests validate the "hypotheses." If there were true acoustic
differences there is no way that a time-proximate bias double-blind controlled
test could prevent subjects from hearing them.



I go in with no assumptions and perform (what I consider careful,

methodical,
long tem) observational listening.


No you don't, you perform sighted listening, and simply *ignore* its
readily demonstrable fatal flaws.

When I hear differences that I cannot
explain, I perform more listening or have other experienced listeners join

me
to see what they hear. Having no explanation in engineering or scientific

terms
does not concern me because I have seen that measured test results often do

not
correspond with experienced listeners' reports (JA's Stereophile

correlations).


Indeed open-listening allows all kinds on non-acoustic factors to impinge on
listeners 'perceptions.'



You will however *never* find a non-sighted test which will show any
difference due to the use of a green pen.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


And that's the truth.
  #253   Report Post  
Thomas A
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

article snipped

This article reaffirms tow points I have made many times befo
1. Audio equipment (CD players in this example) all sounds different fr
om one
another. I am sure that if this test were repeated with amplifiers the r
esults
would be positive.
2. Ordinary audiophiles are not very good at dbts. Trained listeners
perform much better. However, most dbts reported here use ordinary audio
philes
and get null results. That should not be surprising and those results
meaningless, regardless of how many times they are repeated.
Regards,
Mike


Just a few comments to the article. The background was that we would
conduct a DBT in the presence of one US person from the AudioReview
forum. This person did not show up but we decided to go through the
test anyway.

The audible difference is subtle in my ears. The chosen CD player was
selected beacuse it was the *worst sounding* CD player found in the
many blind tests previously made by the listeners. The difference
between e.g. the H/K player and the reference DAC was none or very
small.

One error with the test is a sync problem, however, the test was
performed in such a way that it was harder to verify differences due
to the ABABA design (no ABX). Switching was not performed by the
listener but in a more "random" fashion because of the small sync
problem.

Although there was a sync problem, I am confident that there was a
difference between this CD player and the DAC. We performed many blind
training sessions with significant results, without having the sync
problem The blind session was performed with the switcher behind the
listener and there was no visual contact between switcher and listener
during the initial blind-tests.
  #254   Report Post  
Peter Irwin
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote in message ...

Michael,

You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception
which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test.


You have to show:
1. That such a thing exists
2. that it is more significant than any difference in the equipment


It most certainly exists. Any serious effort towards doing
controlled blind testing in audio should convince you. The funny
thing is that it doesn't have to work the way you expect: it may
have no connexion to your conscious biases. Sometimes when people
make fun of audiophiles, they imply that there are obvious connections
between the illusory differences heard and the listener's
preconceptions. I do not think this is true of the differences
I hear, and I don't suppose that it is true of you either.

The differences which are heard as a result of open listening
tend to be "audiophile" type differences: more open, warmer,
more natural, more lively, and their opposites: constricted,
cold, unnatural and dreary. (This is by no means intended
to be a complete list.) When such differences are detected
in controlled testing, no one questions their significance.

Even if you are not interested in doing any controlled testing
yourself, you might be interested in reading some of the literature.

My favorite article on the subject is:

Peter Baxandall. "Audible amplifier distortion is not a mystery"
in Wireless World November 1977.

Peter.
--

  #255   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...
Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception
which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test.


You have to show:
1. That such a thing exists


No, actually, he does not. There is a solid century and a half
of research indicating such exists, along with a similar period
of research conducted by a very large number of researchers regarding
how easily the ear can be fooled into "hearing" things that just
aren't there, starting with the likes of Helmholtz.

The fact that bias and the ease of auditory deception has been
SO soundly established by thousands of researchers, upon tens of
thousands of subjects, and that the ONLY place that this has
been challenged is by a few high-end audio hobbyists with next
to no experience in the field, it would seem, kind sir, the burden
is on YOU to show that such things as bias do NOT exist.

2. that it is more significant than any difference in the equipment


I can easily offer counter-ecvidence in the form of three products,
each of which behaved differently and CONSISTENTLY so, for which
'bias' (as usually understood) cannot account.


Uh, talk about epistomoligical mumbo-jumbo, if bias is strong enough,
it precisely explains what you are claiming.

Please, before you challenge this rather large and well established
body of research, you should consider actually researching the
data which you so enthusiastically tilt against. Know thine enemy,
Ceasar said, for he is us, finished Pogo.


  #256   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

(Dick Pierce) wrote in message ...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...
Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
You would be amazed at the amount of inadvertent self-deception
which is practically a rule in a sighted listening test.


You have to show:
1. That such a thing exists


No, actually, he does not.


Yes, he does. How is it so clever? How does it make the spray-cleaner
not work at all, ever, while allowing the green pen and green platter
to work? isn't that some VERY sophisticated 'bias'? that itself calls
for explanation, don't you think?

There is a solid century and a half
of research indicating such exists, along with a similar period
of research conducted by a very large number of researchers regarding
how easily the ear can be fooled into "hearing" things that just
aren't there, starting with the likes of Helmholtz.

The fact that bias and the ease of auditory deception has been
SO soundly established by thousands of researchers, upon tens of
thousands of subjects, and that the ONLY place that this has
been challenged is by a few high-end audio hobbyists with next
to no experience in the field, it would seem, kind sir, the burden
is on YOU to show that such things as bias do NOT exist.

2. that it is more significant than any difference in the equipment


I can easily offer counter-ecvidence in the form of three products,
each of which behaved differently and CONSISTENTLY so, for which
'bias' (as usually understood) cannot account.


Uh, talk about epistomoligical mumbo-jumbo, if bias is strong enough,
it precisely explains what you are claiming.


What bias are you talking about?


Please, before you challenge this rather large and well established
body of research, you should consider actually researching the
data which you so enthusiastically tilt against. Know thine enemy,
Ceasar said, for he is us, finished Pogo.


I just did. You have not provided satisfactory replies.
  #259   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

Yes, I was aware of the use of overlays in photo's for astronomy.
But Mr. Scarpitti is the person who mentioned 'side by side'
comparison. And wasn't speaking of the blinkscope method of
comparison it would seem.

Dennis

"normanstrong" wrote in message
...
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message

news:2Xifb.
No, it does not apply to photographic lens testing. The results

are
fixed on film and visible at any time. Side-by-side comparisons

are
possible.


How would lens testing be different? Yes, side by side comparisons
are possible. But you can only look at one photo at a time.
Switching between them still means a delay and memory is
involved all the same.

Dennis


Have you ever heard of the "blink microscope"? Zeiss designed this
device almost 100 years ago. Its purpose was to discover whether any
of 1000's of stars had moved between 2 photographic exposures of the
same piece of sky. Memory is not involved; you are looking for
movement only.

Norm Strong


  #260   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

"Dennis Moore" said
"norman strong" said
"Dennis Moore" said
"Michael Scarpitti" said


But then, about a week ago, a moderator intoned...

"As of now, all blind test related threads are ended. Any
post mentioning them will be returned including those sent
before this was posted.

"And also as of now, any new thread on the subject will
very likely be rejected."

Look, are they ended, or not? Has control been lost altogether?

Frankly, neither side has presented a coherent case for their position
because neither side knows what the hell they are talking about. There
are no longer anyone participating in these discussions who have any
sound, fundamental foundation for their opinions. Those that might
have simply given up, leaving it to, frankly, a bunch of rank amateur
wannabees and pontificants whose total sum knowledge pales miserably
in the face of what the real experts forget about the topic when they
comb the remaining hairs on their heads. I'm not talking about the
self-proclaimed "subjectivists," or the self-appointed "objectivists,"
I'm talking about the whole bunch, with BLESSED few exceptions.

The lot of you are holding forth on topics about which you have
SO little knowledge it has become sadly laughable. And, unfortunately,
r.a.h-e is a rather faithful mirror of this idiotic "industry" as a
whole.

Feh.



  #261   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

The lot of you are holding forth on topics about which you have
SO little knowledge it has become sadly laughable. And, unfortunately,
r.a.h-e is a rather faithful mirror of this idiotic "industry" as a
whole.

Feh.


Right on! You go Dick. Is it the fault of our school systems, or Dr. Spock's
book that advocated less strict parenting than the Victorian generation? Or is
it the pervasive media that we should blame?
Regards,
Mike

  #262   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

Can we please not continue a conversation about why we're not going to
continue a conversation?

"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:bkznb.51756$e01.128587@attbi_s02...
The lot of you are holding forth on topics about which you have
SO little knowledge it has become sadly laughable. And, unfortunately,
r.a.h-e is a rather faithful mirror of this idiotic "industry" as a
whole.

Feh.


Right on! You go Dick. Is it the fault of our school systems, or Dr.

Spock's
book that advocated less strict parenting than the Victorian generation?

Or is
it the pervasive media that we should blame?
Regards,
Mike


  #263   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

(Mkuller) wrote in message ...
mkuller wrote:
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive enough

for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions.



Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not.


Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to
others for a while.

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the
result of biases).


Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these
effects has not been established.

"Sighted listening" and a "blind test" are two very
different human experiences. The sensitivity required of the program source
may indeed be different for it to be identified under blind conditions. Here's
why:

Mr. Scarpitti sits there casually listening to his two CDs (with his right
brain), one treated, one not, and he says he easily hears less noise in the
treated one. Now for the test - assuming the conditions (controls) are the
same - unlike the Sunshine Stereo debacle where the testers interfered with the
test (why do you think other behavioral/perceptual tests keep the testers
behind a two-way mirror? Because they interfere with the results of the test.)


So he's listening to the two CDs A and B, and then X is put on. Now he must
take his fading memories of A and B (larger differences like loudness and
frequency response seem to be eaisier to hold in memory for a little longer)
and compare to X. His brain switches from relaxed listening to decision-making
mode (left brain) as he struggles to compare X to A and B as the memories fade
quickly. He must make a decision. Now. The memories are fading fast. Did he
really hear more noise on A? Now what? Quick. Pick one. This is not nearly the
same experience as "relaxed listening to music".

Is Mr. Scarpitti a good ABX performer? It appears that individuals vary widely
in their ABX abilities (like any other human testing ability). He has had no
specific training other than some sighted listening. He may or may not be able
to identify the same things he heard sighted under very different conditions
(blind test) or he may not. You seem to feel this blind test is definitive - I
call it flawed (unlike the controlled tests used in clinical research) and
questionable.

Nope -- it seems you simply don't understand what DBT can do.


I believe I understand "what it can do" and that is show a lot of null results
when there are subtle audible differences between compared components.

Curious, too, that you haven't commented on the fact that the
whole 'green pen' thing was a joke in the first place.


Our assumptions begin at the different ends of the spectrum. Because you do
not have a mechanism you understand for an audible effect here (as with
comparing two 'competent' amps), you assume there can be no audible
differences. And your blind test shows null results which reinforce your
preconception.

I go in with no assumptions and perform (what I consider careful, methodical,
long tem) observational listening. When I hear differences that I cannot
explain, I perform more listening or have other experienced listeners join me
to see what they hear. Having no explanation in engineering or scientific terms
does not concern me because I have seen that measured test results often do not
correspond with experienced listeners' reports (JA's Stereophile correlations).


To tie thais back to the title of the thread, you and some other objectivists
here (certainly not all) seem to have a very narrow, rigid view on things you
hear (or don't) in audio that do not correspond with what the rest of us
audiophiles experience (even understanding the concepts of preconceptions and
bias). You have Audio Critic to reinforce your views and I'll read the other
audio publications that reinforce mine. It is not likely we will ever agree
here.
Regards,
Mike


  #264   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote in message
...
mkuller wrote:
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may

proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive

enough
for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions.


Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it

identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not.


Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious debate to
others for a while.

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive

enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not the
result of biases).


Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these
effects has not been established.


...snip remainder....

Sure it has. In "Can You Trust Your Ears" (AES Preprint 3177; 1991 Convention)
I show results of an experiment (31 subjects, 431 trials) where it can be seen
that humans (housewives to audiophiles) are strongly biased to report
"preference" for one of two identical sound presentations and to describe small
(1 dB) differences in level as differences in 'quality.'

If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the
overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels
..... EVER.

  #265   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration
techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the
overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels
.... EVER.








At Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica this has never been the case IME. Same
for Acoustic Image in North Hollywood. They have always given me full control
of the levels in any comparisons. They have always just hit the mute switch
when changing over components. One of the most interesting things I ever saw at
Optimal Enchantment was the owner, Randy Cooley, auditioning a very well known
line of electronics. The owner of the company, the man with his name on the
face plate personally brought the gear for Randy to audition to consider
carrying the line. Despite the companie's excellent reputation Randy did not
like the sound. He chose to carry the line despite this because of demand. He
always openly maintained that he personally didn't like that brand. I have
found the same kind of candidness from Elliot at Acoustic Image about the gear
he sells as well.



  #266   Report Post  
Lou
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this...

--
Best Regards,

Lou
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote in message
...
mkuller wrote:
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may

proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive

enough
for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions.


Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it

identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison

blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not.


Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious

debate to
others for a while.

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive

enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not

the
result of biases).


Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these
effects has not been established.


..snip remainder....

Sure it has. In "Can You Trust Your Ears" (AES Preprint 3177; 1991

Convention)
I show results of an experiment (31 subjects, 431 trials) where it can be

seen
that humans (housewives to audiophiles) are strongly biased to report
"preference" for one of two identical sound presentations and to describe

small
(1 dB) differences in level as differences in 'quality.'

If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration

techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns

the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the
overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels
.... EVER.


  #268   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

"Lou"

That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this...

--
Best Regards,

Lou


Sure they do. That has been the modus operandi at three quarters or more of the
demo's I've ever seen. Further, it doesn't even have to consciously used as a
'trick'; when "it's just the way we do things here."

I'd rather not let the main point go overlooked here; acoustical levels are
seldom, if ever, matched in audio demonstrations at the CES, the local salon or
in your listening room.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote in message
...
mkuller wrote:
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may
proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven sensitive
enough
for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind conditions.


Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it
identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison

blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or not.


Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious

debate to
others for a while.

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was sensitive
enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and not

the
result of biases).

Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these
effects has not been established.


..snip remainder....

Sure it has. In "Can You Trust Your Ears" (AES Preprint 3177; 1991

Convention)
I show results of an experiment (31 subjects, 431 trials) where it can be

seen
that humans (housewives to audiophiles) are strongly biased to report
"preference" for one of two identical sound presentations and to describe

small
(1 dB) differences in level as differences in 'quality.'

If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration

techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns

the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the
overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels
.... EVER.









  #269   Report Post  
Paul Abelson
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51...

If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration

techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns

the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls

the
overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match

levels
.... EVER.

"Lou" wrote in message
...
That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this...

--
Best Regards,

Lou


Actually, honest folks do it all the time, without realizing it. They may
honestly believe that one unit sounds better than another, so they crank up
the volume until it really does sound better. Human nature. You don't have
to think salesmen are crooks to realize that in-store demonstrations, as
typically practiced, are of questionable value.


  #270   Report Post  
Lou
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

Shall we try again;

You said;

" Sure they do. That has been the modus operandi at three quarters or more
of the
demo's I've ever seen. Further, it doesn't even have to consciously used

as a
'trick'; when "it's just the way we do things here.""


I said;

"honest folks do not do this..."

If they are honest, they do not do this. Everyone knows it, so if they do
it, they do it knowingly, and are thus not being honest, IMO.
--
Best Regards,

Lou
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:VbYpb.108382$Fm2.93486@attbi_s04...
"Lou"

That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this...

--
Best Regards,

Lou


Sure they do. That has been the modus operandi at three quarters or more

of the
demo's I've ever seen. Further, it doesn't even have to consciously used

as a
'trick'; when "it's just the way we do things here."

I'd rather not let the main point go overlooked here; acoustical levels

are
seldom, if ever, matched in audio demonstrations at the CES, the local

salon or
in your listening room.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

(Mkuller) wrote in message
...
mkuller wrote:
Ah, the flawed amatuer dbt you hold so dear. So the gentleman may
proceed,
please suggest a program for him to use which has proven

sensitive
enough
for
him to be able to identify these differences under blind

conditions.


Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Not necessary. He has already identified programs that make it
identifiable
under sighted conditions; he claims already to have *heard the

effect*
of green pens. So all he needs to do now is redo the comparison

blinded,
using the same material, to see if it was the result of bias or

not.


Ok, let me try to be concise here and then leave this contentious

debate to
others for a while.

Mr. Scarpitti heard it sighted so you assume his program was

sensitive
enough
for him to hear the same thing blind (if it was in fact audible and

not
the
result of biases).

Not to mention: The existence of 'bias' as being able to produce these
effects has not been established.

..snip remainder....

Sure it has. In "Can You Trust Your Ears" (AES Preprint 3177; 1991

Convention)
I show results of an experiment (31 subjects, 431 trials) where it can

be
seen
that humans (housewives to audiophiles) are strongly biased to report
"preference" for one of two identical sound presentations and to

describe
small
(1 dB) differences in level as differences in 'quality.'

If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration

techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns

the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls

the
overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match

levels
.... EVER.












  #271   Report Post  
Lou
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

I'll concede that an amateur sales person might do this unknowingly, but I
have known about it since the early 80's, if not the late 70's, so one would
have to assume that they are either new to audio, have their head buried
somewhere it ought not be, or that they are not honest, IMO.

--
Best Regards,

Lou
"Paul Abelson" wrote in message
...
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:3CQpb.78911$ao4.220789@attbi_s51...

If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration

techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS

turns
the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls

the
overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match

levels
.... EVER.

"Lou" wrote in message
...
That is an old and well known trick, honest folks do not do this...

--
Best Regards,

Lou


Actually, honest folks do it all the time, without realizing it. They may
honestly believe that one unit sounds better than another, so they crank

up
the volume until it really does sound better. Human nature. You don't have
to think salesmen are crooks to realize that in-store demonstrations, as
typically practiced, are of questionable value.



  #272   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:52:19 GMT, "Lou"
wrote:

Shall we try again;

You said;

" Sure they do. That has been the modus operandi at three quarters or more of the
demo's I've ever seen. Further, it doesn't even have to consciously used as a
'trick'; when "it's just the way we do things here.""


I said;

"honest folks do not do this..."

If they are honest, they do not do this. Everyone knows it, so if they do
it, they do it knowingly, and are thus not being honest, IMO.


Sorry, you may be missing a major point. Many 'high end' dealers,
while basically honest, have been sucked into the same bull**** as
their customers, so they truly believe that if they perceive amp A to
be 'better' than amp B, then it *must* be true, and there's no need
for silliness like matching levels, or blind testing. After all,
*everyone* can hear these 'night and day' differences - can't they?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #273   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

Stewart said


If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration
techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the


overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels
.... EVER.


I said


At Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica this has never been the case IME.

Same
for Acoustic Image in North Hollywood. They have always given me full

control
of the levels in any comparisons. They have always just hit the mute switch
when changing over components.



Stewart said


This won't necessarily match levels either because input sensitivities can
vary.


True. In some cases that isn't an issue though.

Stewart said

My point is that levels are never matched except by Kentucky windage and
that floor personnel will, over time, employ techniques that tend to sell
product, even when they may not be consciously aware of the particular bias
mechanisms.


I was simply pointing out that in some "audio salons" here in L.A. those
techniques are not employed. If I am given control of the levels the sales
person cannot employ techniques using levels to seel the products.

  #275   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:42:33 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Stewart said

If you doubt this, just carefully observe audio-salon demonstration
techniques.
(or even your own demonstration protocols) The salesperson ALWAYS turns the
volume control ALL the way down between comparisons and then controls the


overall level on the comparison. There is NEVER an attempt to match levels
.... EVER.


I said

At Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica this has never been the case IME.

Same
for Acoustic Image in North Hollywood. They have always given me full

control
of the levels in any comparisons. They have always just hit the mute switch
when changing over components.


Stewart said

This won't necessarily match levels either because input sensitivities can
vary.


True. In some cases that isn't an issue though.
Stewart said

My point is that levels are never matched except by Kentucky windage and
that floor personnel will, over time, employ techniques that tend to sell
product, even when they may not be consciously aware of the particular bias
mechanisms.


I was simply pointing out that in some "audio salons" here in L.A. those
techniques are not employed. If I am given control of the levels the sales
person cannot employ techniques using levels to seel the products.


Stewart didn't say any of the above, Tom did. OTOH, I agree with him.
OTGH, if you believe that level controls are the only sales technique
used in high-end salons, then much is revealed.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #276   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS

Stewart didn't say any of the above, Tom did. OTOH, I agree with him.
OTGH, if you believe that level controls are the only sales technique
used in high-end salons, then much is revealed.................
--


It was the only one under discussion. I was just staying on topic. If you wish
to discuss other techniques it may make for an interesting topic and a useful
one.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"