| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
|
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
In article , Mkuller wrote:
mkuller wrote: It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm being presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If you think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way they do. Well, if you think it's NOT just a hearing test, maybe you can move the debate forward by telling us what it is. This debate has not "moved forward" since it began many years ago. And, methinks, you just avoided an opportunity to move it forward by not answering the gentleman's question. I would like to repeat it: If the comparison of audio equipment reduced to the audible differences ONLY, that is, all non-auditory information is removed, thus reducing the detection of differences to those which can only find their way to the person listening via the auditory periphery is NOT test involving hearing only, what, precisely is it? Come on Mike, step up, take a swing, and be a hero :-) -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
I said
Huh? You seem not to understand the purpose of peer review. It does not determine and is not the arbiter of "scientific validity." Perhaps you don't understand it. It more or less is such an arbiter of such things. Any scientific claims that have not been through peer review and publishing is regarded as junk science without merit. Well at least according to the research scientists I have asked. Maybe you know more about it than they do. In the world of science when one does research via experimentation that value of that data hinges on peer review. Dick said The mere fact that a published article made it through peer review does NOT mean that the reviewers agree with the contents of that article. It simply means that the reviewers assert that the methods used are up to standard. One can publish an article that describes a set of well conducted, well researeched, carefully controlled experiments that reaches a conclusion that disagrees completely with the currently accepted scientific views, even the view of the peer review committee. Never said otherwise. if someone tries to publish an article that draws conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests conducted for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing definitive conclusions from inconclusive data. Dick said But S888Wheels' claim that the peer review process, to paraphrase from the two sets of quotes above, is "the arbiter of scientific validity" is simply NOT the case. It is an assurance to the reader that, in the opinion of the reviewers, the author took appropriate care in the PROCESS, but THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT A SANCTION OF THE RESULTS OF THE AUTHORS METHODS NOR OF HIS CONCLUSIONS DERIVED THEREFROM. All due respect to S888Wheels' scientific researcher friends, someone is not understanding the process if they claim otherwise. Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without scientific peer review are junk in the world of science. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(Richard D Pierce) wrote:
If the comparison of audio equipment reduced to the audible differences ONLY, that is, all non-auditory information is removed, thus reducing the detection of differences to those which can only find their way to the person listening via the auditory periphery is NOT test involving hearing only, what, precisely is it? As you have described it, it would be a test of: 1. HEARING differences AND 2. Recognizing differences 3. Short-term memory - remembering differences (especially challenging using a dynamic program like music) 4. Successfully matching differences to an unknown 5. Test-taking ability That is much more complex than a simple "hearing test", right Dick?. Maybe your audiologist requires you to go through all of those hurdles when you have your hearing tested, but mine makes it much easier and just focuses on the "hearing" part. Now that the great debate has been moved forward, can we let it go and start having some fun discussing music or audio equipment? Regards, Mike |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
|
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Mkuller wrote:
(Richard D Pierce) wrote: If the comparison of audio equipment reduced to the audible differences ONLY, that is, all non-auditory information is removed, thus reducing the detection of differences to those which can only find their way to the person listening via the auditory periphery is NOT test involving hearing only, what, precisely is it? As you have described it, it would be a test of: 1. HEARING differences AND 2. Recognizing differences 3. Short-term memory - remembering differences (especially challenging using a dynamic program like music) 4. Successfully matching differences to an unknown 5. Test-taking ability That is much more complex than a simple "hearing test", right Dick?. Maybe your audiologist requires you to go through all of those hurdles when you have your hearing tested, but mine makes it much easier and just focuses on the "hearing" part. If you're going to be this semantically picky, an audiological 'hearing test' is at least in part a test of difference. You are asked to respond when you can hear a sound or not at a given frequency. It is also a test of short-term memory, as is any serial presentation. And it is no less a test of test-taking ability. And any test of hearing differences involving self-report by the testee, is also a test of recognizing differences, so #1 and #2 are redundant above. -- -S. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
ludovic mirabel wrote:
(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message ... "If the auditory peripheral system is not presented with auditory stimuli which result in a different response by the auditory periphery, and thus the auditory periphery is not capable of presented a different response to the auditory cortex, then whatever DIFFERENCE in action of the "cortical centre for MUSIC processing" cannot be due to a difference in SOUND and thus must be due to non-sound differences." "Unless you are proposing some magic like telepathy. Or simply engaging in argumentation". I tried to translate for my own use this pretentious, pseudoscientific gobledygook and failed. Given your penchant for same, I'm surprised. In any case, I understood it easily: no different signal at the receptors means no different signal at the auditory cortex. Thus any such perception of difference that results in such case, CANNOT be the result of an actual auditory event. In other words, you imagined it. Simple example from audio hobbyism: the classic mistake of being convinced you heard a difference, only to realize that one of the articles being compared wasn't plugged in/switched in/played/working in the first place. Yes -it is the the *non-sound* differences that make us distinguish the reproduction of SOUNDS made by the violins in a Beethoven quartet from the SOUNDS made by a Gipsy violinn or the pink noise. I haven't a clue how it hapens. It is not science- just my gut feeling. That's odd. I know exactly how it happens: there are in fact vast 'sound' differences between all the examples you cite. These manifest thenvselves as differences in the sound waves taht impringe upon the ear. These differences are easily demonstrated objectively. -- -S. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Bob Marcus wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote in message ... if someone tries to publish an article that draws conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests conducted for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing definitive conclusions from inconclusive data. Given that you have admitted to (and certainly demonstrated) no more than a very basic understanding of statistics, perhaps you are not in the best position to be proclaiming what does and does not constitute conclusive data. snip Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without scientific peer review are junk in the world of science. Maybe it's better not to generalize about subjects outside your field. Findings which cannot be confirmed or replicated constitute junk science. That something is published in an unreviewed journal (or not published at all) does not make it wrong. There is, howver, generally more scientific *prestige* attached to articles published in peer-reviewed journals than elsewhere...because in a pr journal there's been at least the possibility of nonsense-filtering. The distinction between peer reviewed and nonpeer reviewed claims has been noted here by *both* sides at different times. The fact that some claims come from AES abstracts (not peer reviewed) versus peer reviewed journal publications, for example, has been cited as one reason to be more skeptical of the former than the latter. -- -S. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Mkuller wrote:
mkuller wrote: As you have described it, it would be a test of: 1. HEARING differences AND 2. Recognizing differences 3. Short-term memory - remembering differences (especially challenging using a dynamic program like music) 4. Successfully matching differences to an unknown 5. Test-taking ability That is much more complex than a simple "hearing test", right Dick?. Maybe your audiologist requires you to go through all of those hurdles when you have your hearing tested, but mine makes it much easier and just focuses on the "hearing" part. Steven Sullivan wrote: If you're going to be this semantically picky, I beg your pardon... This whole thread seems to be about picky things, semantics included. You took it to a new level. Congratulations. Now I'm running with it. an audiological 'hearing test' is at least in part a test of difference. You are asked to respond when you can hear a sound or not at a given frequency. No, it isn't a test of differences between the sounds, only a test of whether you can HEAR each of them individually. As compared to NOT hearing them (i.e., hearing silence). Strictly speaking, that is a test of difference: sound or silence. It is also a test of short-term memory, as is any serial presentation. No, it isn't. You are not asked to remember and compare the serial sounds - only if you can HEAR each one. Think of silence as another 'sound' and it becomes a test of short term memory. Of course, actual ABX/DBT etc tend not to compare things as radically different as 'no sound' versus 'sound. They tend to be used to compare things taht are only marginally different at best. BUT at the limmits of an audiological exam -- for me, somehwere above 15 kHz -- the difference between 'heard it' and didn't hear it' becomes just as marginal. And it is no less a test of test-taking ability. Perhaps, but at the most basic level since no memory or comparisons are required. See above. And any test of hearing differences involving self-report by the testee, Yes, it does. I guess that means you can add a #6. to my list above - self-awareness and accurate self-reporting. Subtract it because it's inbvolved in ANY comparison, sighted, or otherwise. Otherwise you might just as well add, #7 test of the presence or absence of consciousness. is also a test of recognizing differences, so #1 and #2 are redundant above. No, hearing two sounds is different than recognizing the two sounds are different. Please describe to me two distinct tests that involve self-reporting only, one which tests 'hearing' a difference and the other which tests 'recognizing' a difference. Sorry, but I'm afraid you've got most of this wrong. You have just failed THIS test. I'll try not to cry. -- -S. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
|
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
|
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
In article 6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02... See his text below Dear A.Guy . I promised myself not to bother with this kind of contribution any longer but, true, you have a right to question my credentials. Note that all I claim is that I know enough to know when to shut up about matters that are on the leading edge of specialised research in neuropsychology, neurobiochemistry, neuropharmacology and brain-imaging. Also to know enough to surmise that however modest my resources are in this superspecialised field in all likelihood they are infinitely greater than yours, Pierce's, Marcus' and Sullivan's separately and all together. And mine and Mr. Pierce's in the realm of electronics and sound reproduction is just as infinitely greater than yours, so please keep that in mind. So to particulars. I had 2 years of undergraduate brain anatomy, physiology, and function leading to an exam. I did pre- and then postgraduate neurology in preparation for a competive exam in my specialty of internal medicine- exam which had up to 90% failure rate. I then had to keep up with progress in neurology being a consultant in internal med. to a large community hospital without a resident neurologist. My acquaintance, superficial as it is. with the progress in brain-function research makes me feel that the discussion of juvenile simplicities of Pierce's, yours etc is a waste of time. Example of a simple, well known event in neurology; Brain injury resulting in dysphasia ie problems with speech understanding and production. The patient hears you producing sounds, he can produce sounds but his productions make no more sense than... guess what. He hears but can not follow simplest orders. Sometimes he can swear but not utter a single coherent sentence. His speech center (in the left temporal lobe in rt.handed people) is damaged. Not his "external auditory gobbledygook" ie. earlobes, inner ear, acoustic nerve etc. They are just fine. So you seem to agree that speech recognition and sound recognition are very different things. Thank you. I just read that the researchers think they located a music centre in the brain. My guess, my "gut feeling" is that it is there that a virtuoso distinguishes a Bluethner from a Yamaha or the reproduction of the cello sound differently by different components. You and your pals KNOW exactly what the brain can and can not do. That's the difference between us. No, I do not know what the brain can do, but I do know that sound is the mechanism that allows one to recognize either speech or music, and if there is no difference in the sound reaching the ears, there can be no different information getting to the brain for it to analyze. By the way, I have an MSEE with over 20 years of work experience in the field and have studied information theory and random signal analysis which included statistical analysis of the reception of signals with noise. This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done. Please quote this since I have never said I don't know how it is done. I know exactly how it is done and how DBTs in general is done as I also studied psychology at the university and that is one of the prime subjects. I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of how electronics work than you have and so know that the difference between two signals can be measured to a much finer degree than can be heard. So don't try to lecture me on ABX, please, especially since you've never done even one while I have done many. And talk about someone who has no clue about what ABX is used for, ABX is a test of sound differences, not music recognition nor speech recognition. You chose not to answer then but now you're back instructing me again in neuroanatomy. Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented. This is something you seem to have no clue about, so please explain how it could happen. Well, if you have to... be my guest. Any time you want me to quote from our past discussion just say so. Ludovic Mirabel I said: and that their beloved ABX involves also BRAIN functions we know little about; like for instance a cortical centre for MUSIC processing. You answered: "If the auditory peripheral system is not presented with auditory stimuli which result in a different response by the auditory periphery, and thus the auditory periphery is not capable of presented a different response to the auditory cortex, then whatever DIFFERENCE in action of the "cortical centre for MUSIC processing" cannot be due to a difference in SOUND and thus must be due to non-sound differences." "Unless you are proposing some magic like telepathy. Or simply engaging in argumentation". I tried to translate for my own use this pretentious, pseudoscientific gobledygook and failed. And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic. He's just repeating what I myself also posted. Audio reproduction systems reproduce sound, not music, and that is what ABX is for, to determine differences in sound. If there is no difference in the sound of two units, it is impossible for there to be any audio difference of any kind. At least Marcus says" hearing" when he means hearing- not "auditory peripheral system".. What does "...auditory periphery is not capable of presented a different response to..." mean I haven't a clue. Change "presented" to "presenting" and it makes perfect sense. As if your posts never make simple tense or spelling errors. Again, demonstration of poor comprehension on your part. Quoting me; Language- what's that? You retort: "Something used by some to corrupt, to twist, to manipulate, to misrepresent as the prime tool of argumentation." You forgot "to bore into stupor' Yes -it is the the *non-sound* differences that make us distinguish the reproduction of SOUNDS made by the violins in a Beethoven quartet from the SOUNDS made by a Gipsy violinn or the pink noise. How in the world does it get from the speakers to the brain except via SOUND? That's the point, it is either via sound or via some non-physical mechanism. I haven't a clue how it hapens. It is not science- just my gut feeling. Please keep your guts to yourself.  I feel also that the gulf between myself and someone who KNOWS how brain differentiates Missa Solemnis from the pink noise pink noise is unbridgeable. I also feel tired of anticipating your manufactured outrage: "I didn't say that!" Say whatever you DID say in plain and count me out. This particular trick is wearing out threadbare. As if you always speak clearly and never use 100 words where 5 would do. I have no intention of exchanging speculations with you (or Mr. Audio Guy or Mr. Marcus) about some of the most controversial topics in current pharmacological brain research and brain imaging- that I know little about but am quite certain that any of you know even less. Again, if you know so little, how can you judge how much another knows or understands of the topic? Also ever since my army days I have a thing about being hectored in a seargent-major voice. Then stop using it yourself, we're tired of hearing it too. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Bob Marcus wrote:
And does your highly-credentialed gut tell you that a non-virtuoso distinguishes them in another part of his brain? Or that a virtuoso distinguishes the reproduction of a cricket chirp by different components in a different part of his brain than he would the reproduction of a cello by different components? What does 'virtuoso' have to do with it anyway? By definition, a 'virtuoso' in music is someone who can display techncal acumen. There are plenty of those around that lack artistic qualities. But as he has shown many times, Ludovic has a lot of unique definitions of common words and terms that are well, (how to say it?) highly personal. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:70DOa.9260$N7.1704@sccrnsc03... It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm being presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If you think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way they do. A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our ability to be influenced by the price or reputation of the equipment. - Gary Rosen |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
"Mkuller" wrote in message
It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm being presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If you think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way they do. "Gary Rosen" A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our ability to be influenced by the price or reputation of the equipment. Ah, I get it. You mean it's a test of hearing as opposed to a one of seeing and hearing. No one has denied that. A "hearing test" is one usually conducted by an audiologist using tones of increasing frequency to test one's "hearing" ability. A DBT is a very different type of test which is much more complex than that. Regards, Mike |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Mkuller wrote:
"Mkuller" wrote in message It never ceases to amaze me how obviously intelligent people (perhaps I'm being presumptious here) can take such a simplistic position on this topic. If you think a well-designed DBT comparing audio components using music is just a "hearing test", then it's no wonder these debates go on and on the way they do. "Gary Rosen" A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our ability to be influenced by the price or reputation of the equipment. Ah, I get it. You mean it's a test of hearing as opposed to a one of seeing and hearing. No one has denied that. And no one, except for certain predictable parties, misunderstood that. A "hearing test" is one usually conducted by an audiologist using tones of increasing frequency to test one's "hearing" ability. A DBT is a very different type of test which is much more complex than that. And again no one misunderstood that except for that odd contingent of people who , while decrying the persistence of DBT debate, can't help starting it and participating in it. -- -S. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
In article 03iPa.27941$N7.2693@sccrnsc03, Mkuller wrote:
A DBT *is* just a hearing test. It completely fails at testing our ability to be influenced by the price or reputation of the equipment. Ah, I get it. You mean it's a test of hearing as opposed to a one of seeing and hearing. No one has denied that. A "hearing test" is one usually conducted by an audiologist using tones of increasing frequency to test one's "hearing" ability. A DBT is a very different type of test which is much more complex than that. No, not correct at all. A "hearing" test describes WHAT is being tested. A DB test describes HOW the test is conducted. They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, most modern audiology equipment used for conducting hearing tests conduct them as double-blind hearing tests. You have focused on a very narrow definition of "hearing test" which, in and of itself is not incorrect, and have stated that a double-blind test is a "very different type of test." This is clearly not the case for several reasons. 1. As stated, most modern "hearing tests" in an audiological context ARE double-blind tests. 2. If one is attempting to discern whether the differences between two aural presentations, say, as in the difference between two wires is detectable ON THE DIFFERENCES IN THE AUDIO ONLY, and we are willing to accept the premise that it is the ears that provide the connection between audio stimuli and the brains reaction to that stimuli, then, yes, such are "hearing tests" by the very definition of the term. If the ear can't detect the difference, what else could possibly account for potential differences IF the choice is limited to hearing alone, which is the ENTIRE point of conducting double- blind listening tests? -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
I said
if someone tries to publish an article that draws conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests conducted for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing definitive conclusions from inconclusive data. Bob said Given that you have admitted to (and certainly demonstrated) no more than a very basic understanding of statistics, perhaps you are not in the best position to be proclaiming what does and does not constitute conclusive data. I have admitted to limited skill at doing the calculations. that is entirely different than understanding the results. I find your conclusion that I have demonstrated " avery basic understanding of statistics" based on our disagrrement over the meaning of certain results rather arogant and selfserving on your part. It is unfortunate that you have to make attacks on my intelect over disagreements on the significance of the statistical analysis of the data. I said Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without scientific peer review are junk in the world of science. Bob said Maybe it's better not to generalize about subjects outside your field. Oh, I see. I'm not a scientist so I shouldn't express any generalized opinions about science. Bull****. Are you a scientist by proffession? Are you not following your own advice? about subjects outside your field. Findings which cannot be confirmed or replicated constitute junk science. That something is published in an unreviewed journal (or not published at all) does not make it wrong. Strawman. I never said failure to get something peer reviewed made it wrong. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
I said
Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without scientific peer review are junk in the world of science. Tom said OK; but where is a single report in a peer reviewed journal that confirms the reports of amp/wire sound quality differences found in anecdotal reports, magazine reviews or Stereophile's Recommended Components List? You can't have it both ways. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I never said that any claims in Stereophile have risen from anecdotal to scientifically definitive. I am so far, simply trying to sort out the evidence that is out there. How good is the evidence and what is it telling us and not telling us. Tom said First there was no evidence that you had seen. There was no scientifically valid evidence that i had seen. I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence on both sides. Much of it quite dubious on both sides. Tom said Now published data is inconclusive. No a specific published test that was never peer reviewed. Not only that the testors never measured the test for sensitivity. their choices of samples seemed quite slap dash to say the least. The choice to not persue instances where there was a reasonable chance that certain persons were hearing differences or that certain pieces of equipment may have been sounding different strikes me as a mistake and combined with the lack of testing for sensitivity of the test itself leaves us with an incoclusive test. i think it would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test and draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of amplifiers. Tom said Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a peer reviewed report. Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable basis to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO. Tom said Why would that be; IF they actually existed? I do not have all data on the subject. I thank you again for what you sent me. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
|
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(Richard D Pierce) wrote:
You have focused on a very narrow definition of "hearing test" What I implied in my post, but obviously didn't state clearly enough, is that by DBT I mean an "ABX type" or other comparing differences in audio components - since that is what this brouhaha is all about. To call and ABX-type DBT a "hearing test" is like calling a math exam in school a "vision test". You still did not respond to my post to you: ____________________________________ Subject: Why DBTs in audio do not deliver From: (Mkuller) Date: 7/9/03 12:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: eXZOa.20305$ye4.17055@sccrnsc01 As you have described it, it would be a test of: 1. HEARING differences AND 2. Recognizing differences 3. Short-term memory - remembering differences (especially challenging using a dynamic program like music) 4. Successfully matching differences to an unknown 5. Test-taking ability That is much more complex than a simple "hearing test", right Dick?. Maybe your audiologist requires you to go through all of those hurdles when you have your hearing tested, but mine makes it much easier and just focuses on the "hearing" part. ____________________________________ Regards, Mike |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:pIgPa.28021$ye4.21152@sccrnsc01...
In article 6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02... Thus spoke Audio Guy: "I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of how electronics work than you have and so KNOW (my italics L.M.) that the difference... etc" I said I didn't know how exactly the brain processed the reproduction of music. No, I do not know what the brain can do, but I do KNOW (my italics L.M.)that sound is the mechanism that allows one to recognize either speech or music, and if there is no difference in the sound reaching the ears, there can be no different information getting to the brain for it to analyze. And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic. Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented. "Difference in sound" between a Stradivarius and a corner store violin? To whom ? To 10.000 psychology students and electronics' engs. or to Oistrakh? Somebody's, anybody's brain says to its owner: "No difference". Which proves to somebody, anybody that there IS no difference. Somebody's, anybody else's brain says:" Good Lord, how very different!" "Scientific" (thanks to ABX ) demonstration that the difference enters "the sound" and leaves it again because it doesn't want to make enemies amongst our homegrown scientists. Ludovic Mirabel P.S.I said: This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done. Audio Guy: Please quote this since I have never said I don't know how it is done. I KNOW (my caps L.M.) exactly how it is done and how DBTs in general is done as I also studied psychology at the university and that is one of the prime subjects. By request a quote from July 3rd Subthread (...Was......Furutech) Audio Guy said: "Again, you MISUNDERSTAND (my capitals L.M.) what ABX was designed for. It is a tool to determine if differences exist, not for determining which unit is better. There are DBTs for that purpose, but ABX is not one". L.M. answered: "It is kind of you to straighten me out. I'll pass it on to Carlstrom the "objectivist" Godfather and codeveloper of the ABX switching device. ... here is a quote of his from the official ABX website:" Carlstrom:---" A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test result is not a preference: it does not tell which audio component sounds better. While literally true, if an ABX test confirms a difference is heard, selecting one's preference is easy and completely justified." I commented: "I think that to find out that: " This is different" and leave it at that may be of fascinating interest to pure searchers after truth like you but not to an unsophisticated audio consumer like myself.." (And Carlstrom seems to agree) I continued: "I'm even more confused about your explanation of the ABX test:. I said: "I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change of 1 db. What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct." You answered: "Not what ABX tests do. They are used to determine if you can determine if there is a difference, not if you can identify which is which".. I said: "Curiouser and curiouser as the Red Queen said. . First we have cable A, producing 80 db. Then cable B -81 db.. Then one of these two not known to you (cable X) and you're asked "Is it like A or like B?" What kind of ABX protocol have you been following?" No comment. __________________________________________________ ____________ __Remainder of previous posting: I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of how electronics work than you have and so know that the difference between two signals can be measured to a much finer degree than can be heard. So don't try to lecture me on ABX, please, especially since you've never done even one while I have done many. And talk about someone who has no clue about what ABX is used for, ABX is a test of sound differences, not music recognition nor speech recognition. You chose not to answer then but now you're back instructing me again in neuroanatomy. Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented. This is something you seem to have no clue about, so please explain how it could happen. Well, if you have to... be my guest. Any time you want me to quote from our past discussion just say so. Ludovic Mirabel I said: and that their beloved ABX involves also BRAIN functions we know little about; like for instance a cortical centre for MUSIC processing. You answered: "If the auditory peripheral system is not presented with auditory stimuli which result in a different response by the auditory periphery, and thus the auditory periphery is not capable of presented a different response to the auditory cortex, then whatever DIFFERENCE in action of the "cortical centre for MUSIC processing" cannot be due to a difference in SOUND and thus must be due to non-sound differences." "Unless you are proposing some magic like telepathy. Or simply engaging in argumentation". I tried to translate for my own use this pretentious, pseudoscientific gobledygook and failed. And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic. He's just repeating what I myself also posted. Audio reproduction systems reproduce sound, not music, and that is what ABX is for, to determine differences in sound. If there is no difference in the sound of two units, it is impossible for there to be any audio difference of any kind. At least Marcus says" hearing" when he means hearing- not "auditory peripheral system".. What does "...auditory periphery is not capable of presented a different response to..." mean I haven't a clue. Change "presented" to "presenting" and it makes perfect sense. As if your posts never make simple tense or spelling errors. Again, demonstration of poor comprehension on your part. Quoting me; Language- what's that? You retort: "Something used by some to corrupt, to twist, to manipulate, to misrepresent as the prime tool of argumentation." You forgot "to bore into stupor' Yes -it is the the *non-sound* differences that make us distinguish the reproduction of SOUNDS made by the violins in a Beethoven quartet from the SOUNDS made by a Gipsy violinn or the pink noise. How in the world does it get from the speakers to the brain except via SOUND? That's the point, it is either via sound or via some non-physical mechanism. I haven't a clue how it hapens. It is not science- just my gut feeling. Please keep your guts to yourself. I feel also that the gulf between myself and someone who KNOWS how brain differentiates Missa Solemnis from the pink noise pink noise is unbridgeable. I also feel tired of anticipating your manufactured outrage: "I didn't say that!" Say whatever you DID say in plain and count me out. This particular trick is wearing out threadbare. As if you always speak clearly and never use 100 words where 5 would do. I have no intention of exchanging speculations with you (or Mr. Audio Guy or Mr. Marcus) about some of the most controversial topics in current pharmacological brain research and brain imaging- that I know little about but am quite certain that any of you know even less. Again, if you know so little, how can you judge how much another knows or understands of the topic? Also ever since my army days I have a thing about being hectored in a seargent-major voice. Then stop using it yourself, we're tired of hearing it too. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
In article 8lGPa.37933$H17.11209@sccrnsc02,
(ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:pIgPa.28021$ye4.21152@sccrnsc01... In article 6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02... Thus spoke Audio Guy: "I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of how electronics work than you have and so KNOW (my italics L.M.) that the difference... etc" I said I didn't know how exactly the brain processed the reproduction of music. Didn't say you did, where did this come from? What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't it? No, I do not know what the brain can do, but I do KNOW (my italics L.M.)that sound is the mechanism that allows one to recognize either speech or music, and if there is no difference in the sound reaching the ears, there can be no different information getting to the brain for it to analyze. And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic. Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented. "Difference in sound" between a Stradivarius and a corner store violin? To whom ? To 10.000 psychology students and electronics' engs. or to Oistrakh? Somebody's, anybody's brain says to its owner: "No difference". Which proves to somebody, anybody that there IS no difference. Somebody's, anybody else's brain says:" Good Lord, how very different!" "Scientific" (thanks to ABX ) demonstration that the difference enters "the sound" and leaves it again because it doesn't want to make enemies amongst our homegrown scientists. This is no answer to my question of where I instructed you, just your unusual interpretation of my statement. Again, if sound is not the mechanism of delivery of the music, then what is? That is my question, and one you keep ignoring since you don't seem to have an answer. Ludovic Mirabel P.S.I said: This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done. Audio Guy: Please quote this since I have never said I don't know how it is done. I KNOW (my caps L.M.) exactly how it is done and how DBTs in general is done as I also studied psychology at the university and that is one of the prime subjects. By request a quote from July 3rd Subthread (...Was......Furutech) Audio Guy said: "Again, you MISUNDERSTAND (my capitals L.M.) what ABX was designed for. It is a tool to determine if differences exist, not for determining which unit is better. There are DBTs for that purpose, but ABX is not one". L.M. answered: "It is kind of you to straighten me out. I'll pass it on to Carlstrom the "objectivist" Godfather and codeveloper of the ABX switching device. .. here is a quote of his from the official ABX website:" Carlstrom:---" A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test result is not a preference: it does not tell which audio component sounds better. While literally true, if an ABX test confirms a difference is heard, selecting one's preference is easy and completely justified." I commented: "I think that to find out that: " This is different" and leave it at that may be of fascinating interest to pure searchers after truth like you but not to an unsophisticated audio consumer like myself.." (And Carlstrom seems to agree) Again you seem to be deciding how ABX is to be used, and misinterpreting Carlstrom's statements to do so. He never said that ABX is used to determine a preference, and in fact he states it is LITERALLY true that it is NOT a test of preference. Please re-read what you quoted. He is saying exactly what many other ABX advocated state, that is, once a difference is determined, than one can move on to choosing a preference, the corollary being if no difference is determined then there is no reason to move to the next step and choose a preference. Again, he never said to actually use ABX to make the preference, that is simply you reading between lines that are not there. You yourself just keep proving over and over again that you don't rally understand how ABX is used. I continued: "I'm even more confused about your explanation of the ABX test:. I said: "I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change of 1 db. What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct." You answered: "Not what ABX tests do. They are used to determine if you can determine if there is a difference, not if you can identify which is which".. I said: "Curiouser and curiouser as the Red Queen said. . First we have cable A, producing 80 db. Then cable B -81 db.. Then one of these two not known to you (cable X) and you're asked "Is it like A or like B?" What kind of ABX protocol have you been following?" I decided it wasn't worth answering such a misconstruing of my statement, but since you insist: I meant you are not asked if the unknown is 80 dB or 81 dB, but only if is it A or B. Your original statement never mentioned A or B only the measurements 80 dB or 81 dB. A misunderstanding by you of a misunderstanding of mine. massive unnecessary quoting snipped |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
I said Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without scientific peer review are junk in the world of science. Tom said OK; but where is a single report in a peer reviewed journal that confirms the reports of amp/wire sound quality differences found in anecdotal reports, magazine reviews or Stereophile's Recommended Components List? You can't have it both ways. I said I'm not trying to have it both ways. I never said that any claims in Stereophile have risen from anecdotal to scientifically definitive. I am so far, simply trying to sort out the evidence that is out there. How good is the evidence and what is it telling us and not telling us. Tom said It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling you that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so. It? "It" so far for me is the one article. "it" Is not telling me anything definitive about amp sound. It would be foolish for me to draw any definitive conclusions one way or another based on that article. Tom said You are invoking what I call the Alien Visit or BigFoot defense; it is true that no one has conclusively proven that Aliens don't visit us or that BigFoot doesn't exist. But, you want us to believe when no one can produce a body? Nonsense. I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be sufficiently supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence. Is that asking too much? Tom said First there was no evidence that you had seen. I said There was no scientifically valid evidence that i had seen. I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence on both sides. Much of it quite dubious on both sides. Tom said So then, the dubious evidence on the amp sound side carries MORE weight than the contrary? Please. Please what? did I say I base my opinions on the most dubious of anecdotes? Tom said Now published data is inconclusive I said No a specific published test that was never peer reviewed. Tom said How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound? It is no worse if someone is making claims that it has been scientifically proven that amps sound different. That doesn't seem to be the case though does it? Tom said It's also true that there is no peer-reviewed experiment of anyone NOT witnessing an alien visit or seeing BigFoot. So what? A rather lame attempt at guilt by association. I said Not only that the testors never measured the test for sensitivity. Tom said Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of the 20+ other experiments with similar results? Simple. introduce known audible differences into the test and gauge the confidence levels that each listener can discern those differences at decending levels of those added audible differences. I said their choices of samples seemed quite slap dash to say the least. The choice to not persue instances where there was a reasonable chance that certain persons were hearing differences or that certain pieces of equipment may have been sounding different strikes me as a mistake and combined with the lack of testing for sensitivity of the test itself leaves us with an incoclusive test. Tom said There was no such "reasonable chance" based on the data. You love to use the wishful thinking analysis. So have many other believers. I disagree. I said i think it would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test and draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of amplifiers. Tom said So why don't you examine some of the others? I would be happy to. Tom said That's one of the characteristics of this particular experiment; it HAS been replicated. Really? someone compared the same amps as this test using the same playback system and got the sme results? I'd like to see that. Tom said Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a peer reviewed report. I said Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable basis to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO. Tom said So IYO then we have to accept the idea that amp sound may exist because no one has successfully proven that it doesn't? Even when no proponent has provided a single peer-reviewed experiment that it DOES. I suggest you believe whatever you want to believe. i suggest if you choose to claim something is a scientifically proven fact you have the body of scientifically valid empirical evidence to support such a definitive claim. I think your position lacks perspective. I think your assertion of certainty lacks support. Tom said This is turning the 'proof' requirement from claimant to the general public. No. It is keeping the burden of proof on the claiment. If anyone comes along claiming it is a scientifically varified fact that amps sound different i would expect every bit as much scientifically valid empirical evidence to support that claim as i expect from those making the claim to the contrary. Tom said That doesn't work in my world where anyone making a claim needs to provide the proof Yet you seem to be allowing yourself to be exempt from this rule. Tom said You seem to be willing to accept a claim without any positive evidence and to reject all contrary evidence as 'inconclusive.' Really? Please cite an example of me accepting claims that are alleged to be scientifically factual that doesn't have the requisit scientifically valid empirical evidence to support it. Tom said Why would that be; IF they actually existed? I said I do not have all data on the subject. I thank you again for what you sent me. Tom said As I said IF these audible differences actually existed I wonder why they remain so elusive that not one manufacturer, supplier, distributor, retailer, reviewer, reporter, lab rat, scientist, acoustician, electrical engineer, musician or anyone has been able to provide a single replicable positive experiment that shows that a nominally competent amp/wire has any influence on the sound reaching a liteners ears through loudspeakers in a normally reverberant environment. I am not a manufacturer, supplier, distributor, retailer, reviewer, reporter, lab rat, scientist, acoustician, electrical engineer or a musician. i doubt that you are truly aware of everything all people who fall into any of these catagories have and have not doen in these regards. i would suggest you take it up with the manufacturers that make claims you take issue with and ask them. What is a "normally reverberant envirement?" Tom said Yet there are a couple dozen attempts to find these differences that have failed. I've looked at one that you sent me. We have already been over it. Tom said Now you want us to believe that all the contrary evidence is inconclusive and we should ignore the lack of positives? Doesn't work for me. No. I simply want claims of scientific fact to be duely supported. i want you to believe whatever you want to believe. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
|
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
I said
if someone tries to publish an article that draws conclusions that are in conflict with the very data from the tests conducted for the article it is a different matter. I was talking about drawing definitive conclusions from inconclusive data. Bob said Given that you have admitted to (and certainly demonstrated) no more than a very basic understanding of statistics, perhaps you are not in the best position to be proclaiming what does and does not constitute conclusive data. I said I have admitted to limited skill at doing the calculations. that is entirely different than understanding the results. I find your conclusion that I have demonstrated " avery basic understanding of statistics" based on our disagrrement over the meaning of certain results rather arogant and selfserving on your part. It is unfortunate that you have to make attacks on my intelect over disagreements on the significance of the statistical analysis of the data. Bob said It is not an attack on your intellect to say that your interpretation of statistical results is incorrect. (My apologies if it seemed otherwise.) Fair enough. Bob said Statistical interpretation is far less intuitive than most people think, Agreed. Bob said unless someone's had some training in the field, they're on very slippery ground in trying to second-guess published results. We don't need to talk in such generalizations when we are talking about a very specific article in a non-peer reviewed publication. Bob said As for your understanding of these particular results, Keith Hughes has handled that subject much more ably than I could. Interesting, given the fact that he was unaware of the number of subjects involved in the test. I said Maybe it's better not to paprphrase. The bottom line is that claims without scientific peer review are junk in the world of science. Bob said Maybe it's better not to generalize about subjects outside your field. I said Oh, I see. I'm not a scientist so I shouldn't express any generalized opinions about science. Bull****. Are you a scientist by proffession? Are you not following your own advice? Bob said about subjects outside your field. Findings which cannot be confirmed or replicated constitute junk science. That something is published in an unreviewed journal (or not published at all) does not make it wrong. I said Strawman. I never said failure to get something peer reviewed made it wrong. Bob said But you did call it "junk." Pardon me for failing to notice the difference. It is a big difference. By the way what i said was it is junk in the scientific world. Many claims are junk in the world of science that may or may not be right. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
|
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech
S888Wheel wrote:
snip As for your understanding of these particular results, Keith Hughes has handled that subject much more ably than I could. Interesting, given the fact that he was unaware of the number of subjects involved in the test. Interesting, yes, but not for the reason you seem to imply. Let's add some clarity by synopsis shall we? 1. You made specific claims about *individual* results (e.g. your 30/48 panelist) being significant. I clearly demonstrated that such a result is NOT significantly different than chance. This calculation is trivial, and requires NO additional information about the test, the numbers of, or qualification of the panelists, aggregate results, or anything else. 2. I made it clear that I was responding based on the information *you* provided, and NOT based on review of the article. I stated clearly I did not have the article in question. 3. I made it clear that my opinion on the acceptability of the overal conclusion reached by the article (the only point I addressed that *could* be affected by knowledge of the number of panelists) was based on *your* recounting of the appertaining data. I made no claim as to its completeness. Thus, the comments I made were within this limited context, and were stated as such. Misdirection and/or obfuscation seem apt appellations for your allusions to the contrary. Subsequent to my last posting, Mr. Nousaine has graciously offered to send me the article in question, and after reviewing it, my opinion of the overall conclusion *may* change. Who knows? Time permitting, I will probably post my opinions on the article after my review. The statistical analysis I provided to you, however, will NOT change, since all requisite data was available. Keith Hughes |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
|
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:GjIPa.38100$ye4.29495@sccrnsc01...
In article 8lGPa.37933$H17.11209@sccrnsc02, (ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:pIgPa.28021$ye4.21152@sccrnsc01... This is no answer to my question of where I instructed you, just your unusual interpretation of my statement. Again, if sound is not the mechanism of delivery of the music, then what is? That is my question, and one you keep ignoring since you don't seem to have an answer. Dear Audio Guy, why did not you say so before? Is that all you want me to acknowledge? Are you quite sure? Nothing about the "test" to go with it? Or its usefulness in comparing differences between components? If that is all here it comes: you're 175% right and I'm happy to acknowledge this insight in all its brilliancy: "Sound is the mechanism of delivery of music". Now that we have that out of the way let's go hand in hand to another area where "sound is the mechanism...etc" as well. You guessed it: speech, spoken language, languages. Let's leave aside the problems you might encounter if you communicate your message-by-sound as above to someone with more primitive language skills than yours. . Just land with me in England on what was intended to be a holiday many, many years ago. Being a keen learner I learnt my English from a grammar textbook and a dictionary. I could read Aldous Huxley and was quite confident that I'll get around O.K. I asked a nice man on Oxford Street for directions. He said: "Go to a pub on the corner and..." Seeing my puzzled expression ("pub" did not figure in A. Huxley's book) he clarified: "Go to the public house..." Now it so happens that in most European languages "public house" is a polite way of saying "a brothel". You can imagine how struck I was by the English directness in these delicate matters, and how I wondered if the public house will have a neon sign outside or just a red lantern. It took me some years after that to figure out that there is a difference between the *sounds* produced by a Br.Columbia Canadian and a Washington State Yank. I know many ,many Chinese in my nearly half-Chinese town who would look at me strangely if I suggested that there WAS a difference. You see, their speech centre IN THE BRAIN has not yet computed THIS difference between the sounds coming into their ears. And for some it never will. Now try and help them out by suggesting a DBT. But don't do it while I'm around. Ludovic Mirabel In article 6a8Pa.25318$ye4.20777@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02... Thus spoke Audio Guy: "I also have a much deeper and through knowledge of how electronics work than you have and so KNOW (my italics L.M.) that the difference... etc" I said I didn't know how exactly the brain processed the reproduction of music. Didn't say you did, where did this come from? What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't it? No, I do not know what the brain can do, but I do KNOW (my italics L.M.)that sound is the mechanism that allows one to recognize either speech or music, and if there is no difference in the sound reaching the ears, there can be no different information getting to the brain for it to analyze. And again you show how little you yourself comprehend the topic. Please show where I "instructed" you, I merely asked how the brain could determine a difference if no difference in sound was presented. "Difference in sound" between a Stradivarius and a corner store violin? To whom ? To 10.000 psychology students and electronics' engs. or to Oistrakh? Somebody's, anybody's brain says to its owner: "No difference". Which proves to somebody, anybody that there IS no difference. Somebody's, anybody else's brain says:" Good Lord, how very different!" "Scientific" (thanks to ABX ) demonstration that the difference enters "the sound" and leaves it again because it doesn't want to make enemies amongst our homegrown scientists. P.S.I said: This is the time to remind you that you took on the job of instructing me once before. Kindly and tolerantly I demonstrated to you in this thread that not only you did not have a clue about the intended purpose of ABX but did not even know how it was done. Audio Guy: Please quote this since I have never said I don't know how it is done. I KNOW (my caps L.M.) exactly how it is done and how DBTs in general is done as I also studied psychology at the university and that is one of the prime subjects. By request a quote from July 3rd Subthread (...Was......Furutech) Audio Guy said: "Again, you MISUNDERSTAND (my capitals L.M.) what ABX was designed for. It is a tool to determine if differences exist, not for determining which unit is better. There are DBTs for that purpose, but ABX is not one". L.M. answered: "It is kind of you to straighten me out. I'll pass it on to Carlstrom the "objectivist" Godfather and codeveloper of the ABX switching device. .. here is a quote of his from the official ABX website:" Carlstrom:---" A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test result is not a preference: it does not tell which audio component sounds better. While literally true, if an ABX test confirms a difference is heard, selecting one's preference is easy and completely justified." I commented: "I think that to find out that: " This is different" and leave it at that may be of fascinating interest to pure searchers after truth like you but not to an unsophisticated audio consumer like myself.." (And Carlstrom seems to agree) Again you seem to be deciding how ABX is to be used, and misinterpreting Carlstrom's statements to do so. He never said that ABX is used to determine a preference, and in fact he states it is LITERALLY true that it is NOT a test of preference. Please re-read what you quoted. He is saying exactly what many other ABX advocated state, that is, once a difference is determined, than one can move on to choosing a preference, the corollary being if no difference is determined then there is no reason to move to the next step and choose a preference. Again, he never said to actually use ABX to make the preference, that is simply you reading between lines that are not there. You yourself just keep proving over and over again that you don't rally understand how ABX is used. You're right again. It is used to determine preference or may be it is not , or both or whatever. I'm not up to all this subtlety. I continued: "I'm even more confused about your explanation of the ABX test:. I said: "I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change of 1 db. What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct." You answered: "Not what ABX tests do. They are used to determine if you can determine if there is a difference, not if you can identify which is which".. I said: "Curiouser and curiouser as the Red Queen said. . First we have cable A, producing 80 db. Then cable B -81 db.. Then one of these two not known to you (cable X) and you're asked "Is it like A or like B?" What kind of ABX protocol have you been following?" I decided it wasn't worth answering such a misconstruing of my statement, but since you insist: I meant you are not asked if the unknown is 80 dB or 81 dB, but only if is it A or B. Your original statement never mentioned A or B only the measurements 80 dB or 81 dB. A misunderstanding by you of a misunderstanding of mine. Get it. Everything is clear now. See you around. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Tom said
But I'd like to start with an assertion. Mr Wheel seems to believe that nominally competent amplifiers impart a special sound of their own to music reproduced in the home. I'll fix your assertion. I believe I have heard differences between amplifiers in sighted and blind comparisons. I may not have done a very good job in setting up my blind comparisons and the same may be true of those that were set up for me. i make no claims about the "competence" of thses amplifiers. my last comparison between amplifiers was sighted and involved an SET. It is my impression that Tom may consider SETs to be inherently incompetently designed. I thought it sounded different than my amp. I make no claims that my observations rise beyond anecdotal in merit and make no claims that I cannot possibly be mistaken. Tom said Otherwise we'd not be 'debating' the evidence. Nope. I am debating the levle of scientific certainty ascribed to your views by you. In fact i am really just trying to investigate that level. So far, the only debate I have with you is the conclusions one can draw from one particluar article. Tom said I sent him some articles on the subject, one which was a chronicle of more than 20 bias-controlled listening tests that had been conducted prior to 1990 because he said he'd never seen any evidence on the matter. A chronicle? It was basically an argument for the use of ABX DBTs in audio and cited those tests. It is not a replacement for the evidence itself which was the only thing that I was interested in. Tom said Another was a 1986 report "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" by David Clark and Ian Masters. And the interpretation of those results in that one article has been a source of differing opinions between myslef and several others on RAHE including yourself. Tom said It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling you that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so. I said It? "It" so far for me is the one article. "it" Is not telling me anything definitive about amp sound. It would be foolish for me to draw any definitive conclusions one way or another based on that article. Tom said So read some of the other twenty. There's a clear list on "The Great Debate: Is Anybody Winning?" I would like to but, as I said before, Easter egg hunts are not my thing. I said Nonsense. I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be sufficiently supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence. Is that asking too much? Tom said So you're saying that you want scientifically valid positive evidence of amp sound and can't find any? That's my point. No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be sufficiently supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence. What is so hard to understand about this that you have to rephrase my words and wreck it's meaning? You are making such claims, I am not. Tom said So then, the dubious evidence on the amp sound side carries MORE weight than the contrary? Please. I said Please what? did I say I base my opinions on the most dubious of anecdotes? Tom said What other evidence do you have? Personal experience. So far that carries the most wieght. Tom said You call my evidence dubious, No, I did not. Tom said have never seen a positive confirmation of amp sound other than an anecdote and you STILL believe in it? I have laid out all the evidence I have seen or heard and now you choose to edit it to attack my position that you have misrepresented earlier in this post. Maybe you just aren't understanding what I have been saying. Tom said Now published data is inconclusive I said No a specific published test that was never peer reviewed. Tom said You have to show me a peer-reviewed report that has convincing evidence that amps have a sound of their own before you can reject the other evidence (all 2 dozen of them.) If I made a claim as you have about the scientifically proven certainty the audibility of amps i would indeed have to show you the evidence. You are the one making the claim and you are the one with the burden of proof. My claims of the audibility of amps is purely anecdotal and I make no assertions that it rises above the reliability of anecdotal evidence. Tom said How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound? I said It is no worse if someone is making claims that it has been scientifically proven that amps sound different. That doesn't seem to be the case though does it? Tom said No it doesn't. Why are you still arguing? Because you are still making assertions that you claim are scientifically proven facts without the requisite scientifically valid supportive empirical evidence. Tom said No one has verified amp sound; No one as far as I can see has vierifed it's nonexistance to the level you claim, that being a scientifically valid fact. Tom said yet you still tthink it exists don't you? Without the needed scientificaly valid empirical evidence needed to support claims of scientifically supported claims of fact. i am left with my experience as my best evidence on the issue. one does not have to have scientific proof to reasonably believe something. If I were to exaggerate the reliability of my beliefs on the subject that would be a different matter. I said Not only that the testors never measured the test for sensitivity Tom said Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of the 20+ other experiments with similar results? I said Simple. introduce known audible differences into the test and gauge the confidence levels that each listener can discern those differences at decending levels of those added audible differences. Tom said Doesn't the Bell Labs data on human hearing sensitivity count? I suspect it does. Did Bell Labs come in and test all of these cited tests for sensitivity? Tom said human hearing sensitivity count? Clark's work tested for introduction of known audible cause (level, frequency response, excessive distortion). Once these qualities have been verified to be below the human threshold of audibility what else is left? I didn't see that in the article. I saw no indication that the reference system and the listeners were tested for known barely audible differences. Tom said Oh, the mysterious 'amp sound' that has never been shown to be audible if not a function of the causes just listed. You cannot verify differences that have never been shown to exist. I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Tom said Indeed that was the purpose of the Masters/Clark experiment; to find audible cause commonly and strongly claimed to exist beyond human capability to measure and exploit them through engineering. Really? Looked to me like a simple listening comparison test. I must have missed the attempt to corilate measurements of amp performance. I said i think it would be very foolish for me or anyone else to look at this specific test and draw definitive global conclusions on the audible differences of amplifiers. Tom said But, if this test were the ONLY evidence on the table it still aces valid positive experiments that disclose 'amp sound.' It is the only test on my table as we speak. Tom said So how can you accept anecdotal reports of it when no one has proven its existence? Who said I accept any anecdotal reports as evidence of anything? Tom said So why don't you examine some of the others? I said I would be happy to. Tom said No one is stopping you. Time and resources are the issue. I am probably spending more time just posting on this forum than I should be. I am for better or worse, very busy right now. Unlike a few years back, my endeveours are not as lucritive at the moment. Hopefully my current R&D along with the irons I have in the fire will take care of this. Tom said Go ahead. I've provided you an extensive list of them. Even so "To Tweak...." carries amp sound serially coupled with tubes, wires, wire dress, isolation devices and outboard DACs. In time if things go as I plan. Tom said That's one of the characteristics of this particular experiment; it HAS been replicated. I said Really? someone compared the same amps as this test using the same playback system and got the sme results? I'd like to see that. Tom said Look at the List in "The Great Debate:....?" Replication doesn't mean that one has to use exactly the same equipment, only equipment said to contain the special qualities. Then you still failed to answer part of my question. Did they use the same amps? Tom said Yet, you have NO confirmation of differences you think exist in a peer reviewed report. I said Indeed I don't and never claimed I do. However this is not a reasonable basis to make such definitve assertions of the lack of audible differences IMO. Tom said As I said many claims, no evidence. Why not? Just because someone makes the claims that this special sauce will completely eliminate septic problems, make your dick bigger, improve your old lady's boobs doesn't let me believe the claims without some evidence. Well, with time against me and the level of conversation dropping to this sort of cruedness i mustr end my response to this post. I'll get back to it when time permits. |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
In article b8ZPa.45649$ye4.35574@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:GjIPa.38100$ye4.29495@sccrnsc01... In article 8lGPa.37933$H17.11209@sccrnsc02, (ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:pIgPa.28021$ye4.21152@sccrnsc01... This is no answer to my question of where I instructed you, just your unusual interpretation of my statement. Again, if sound is not the mechanism of delivery of the music, then what is? That is my question, and one you keep ignoring since you don't seem to have an answer. Dear Audio Guy, why did not you say so before? Is that all you want me to acknowledge? Are you quite sure? Nothing about the "test" to go with it? Or its usefulness in comparing differences between components? If that is all here it comes: you're 175% right and I'm happy to acknowledge this insight in all its brilliancy: "Sound is the mechanism of delivery of music". Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't it?" Now that we have that out of the way let's go hand in hand to another area where "sound is the mechanism...etc" as well. You guessed it: speech, spoken language, languages. Yes. let's do that. You also never commented on my statement in a previous reply to you that speech can be compressed and filtered and still be totally intelligible. This is done regularly in telephone systems. Is that what you are advocating for music too? Just showing how inappropriate your analogy is here and how little you really understand the topic. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
ludovic mirabel wrote:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:HWZOa.20234$H17.5464@sccrnsc02... See his text below Dear A.Guy . I promised myself not to bother with this kind of contribution any longer but, true, you have a right to question my credentials. Note that all I claim is that I know enough to know when to shut up about matters that are on the leading edge of specialised research in neuropsychology, neurobiochemistry, neuropharmacology and brain-imaging. Also to know enough to surmise that however modest my resources are in this superspecialised field in all likelihood they are infinitely greater than yours, Pierce's, Marcus' and Sullivan's separately and all together. I surmise that you're wrong. I did my undergrad work at an Ivy League college, concnetrating in two fields: psychology and music. THe former involved a year's coursework in physiological psychology , and directed literatre review of publications in the field of perception of music. The latter involved typical ear training and theory and historical coursework, as well as playing an instrument. My PhD work was in the molecular biology of the development of the vertebrate nervous system, specifically the visual system. My postdoctoral work continued those studies at an even earlier stage of neurobiological development. Beyond the de rigeur courses in cell biology and biochemistry, the coursework involved in the PhD included advanced training and reading in experimental design, neuroanatomy, and molecular neurobiology, with detours through neuropharmacology and evolutionary biology. Nowadays I'm more into bioinformatics, but I keep up with current findings in my former fields via reading Science, Nature, Neuron, Development, and other respected journals. So armed, that only makes me conversant in the 'wetware' end of things; for mastters where my grasp is less sure, I'm happy to learn from people who *obviously* know their stuff engineering of audio components, and the minutiae of psychoacoustics and comparative testing, better than I ever will, and certainly far better than you seem to. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
|
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't it?" Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic differences between amps. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Tom said But I'd like to start with an assertion. Mr Wheel seems to believe that nominally competent amplifiers impart a special sound of their own to music reproduced in the home. I said I'll fix your assertion. I believe I have heard differences between amplifiers in sighted and blind comparisons. I may not have done a very good job in setting up my blind comparisons and the same may be true of those that were set up for me. i make no claims about the "competence" of thses amplifiers. my last comparison between amplifiers was sighted and involved an SET. It is my impression that Tom may consider SETs to be inherently incompetently designed. Tom said But did you test for nominal competency? Did I test for your idea of competency? No. I'm not entirely sure what you consider to be competent. I have only noted that I remember you saying something to the effect that SETs weren't. The amp certainly worked. The system played music when the amp was used. Tom said Were levels and frequency response matched? I varied the levels for each listening session to that which sounded best for each selection. So, on the one hand the levels were not matched. OTOH the levels were where they would be in my normal use. If I had the means at the time to match levels i would have. this was my way of trying to work around this problem. i used no EQ. the frequency response was whatever it was for each amp. Tom said Did you test yourself for sensitivity to known "audible" differences and freedom for self-induced or experimental bias? I did not test myself for sensitivity to differences. If i audition a piece of equipment and don't hear a difference then I would have no interest in buying it. So if I am insenseitive to audible differences it is of no consequence that i might be missing them in an audition for purchase consideration. I did not do the test blind as I said so i was quite aware that I may be suseptable to biases. Tom said If not then you're claiming that personal anecdotal experience should carry more weight than any other experiment, even those with matched levels and response verification and listener bias controls implemented. No I'm not. Tom said I'd say your personal experience lacks all the elements you fail to see in the other tests on your table as we speak and then a great deal more. I would agree. that is why i make no claims of their scientific validity. I said I thought it sounded different than my amp. I make no claims that my observations rise beyond anecdotal in merit and make no claims that I cannot possibly be mistaken. Tom said With no clear picture of the experimental details (no raw data for certain) how can anyone, even you, accept it as just more dubious conjecture? I don't expect anyone to accept it as anything more than an anecdote. as for myself, i had the experience. Tom said Otherwise we'd not be 'debating' the evidence. I said Nope. I am debating the levle of scientific certainty ascribed to your views by you. In fact i am really just trying to investigate that level. So far, the only debate I have with you is the conclusions one can draw from one particluar article. Tom said I'd say there are at least two that use amplifiers on your table right now. Yes but yours used an unconventional protocol. One that is not used normally for maximum sensitivity. Tom said I sent him some articles on the subject, one which was a chronicle of more than 20 bias-controlled listening tests that had been conducted prior to 1990 because he said he'd never seen any evidence on the matter. I said A chronicle? It was basically an argument for the use of ABX DBTs in audio and cited those tests. It is not a replacement for the evidence itself which was the only thing that I was interested in. Tom said It has a clear listing of nearly 2 dozen such experiments, doesn't it? Yes, sources are clearly listed. Tom said Another was a 1986 report "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" by David Clark and Ian Masters. I said And the interpretation of those results in that one article has been a source of differing opinions between myslef and several others on RAHE including yourself. Tom said But those who disagree with the results have no alternative evidence other than anecdote upon which to draw opinions. Ket's be clear about this. It is the interpretation that is in dispute. not the data. Tom said It's not telling you that amp sound has ever been verified. It is telling you that many attempts to verify amp sound have failed to do so. I said It? "It" so far for me is the one article. "it" Is not telling me anything definitive about amp sound. It would be foolish for me to draw any definitive conclusions one way or another based on that article. Tom said OK; why not investigate some of the rest? As i have already explained it will be a while before i can do this due to time and resources. i'm not broke but I'm not single if you get my drift. Tom said Or draw tentative conclusions based on the evidence at hand? I did, you just didn't like them. Tom said You seem willing perfectly able to draw a conclusion that 'amp sound' exists with NO evidentiary back-up other tnan a personal anecdote. I have drawn such conclusions the same way I have drawn similar conclusions about my favorite burger joint and my favorite speakers. I make no claim of the scientific reliability of those conclusions and keep those conclusions in that perspective. Tom said So read some of the other twenty. There's a clear list on "The Great Debate: Is Anybody Winning?" I said I would like to but, as I said before, Easter egg hunts are not my thing. Tom said You've never been on an audio egg hunt or any other kind of hunt for data as far as I can see. Sorry, i cannot help you with your perception problems. Tom said Even when the eggs are delivered free you reject them. Are you seriously equating a disagrrement in interpretation of data as a rejection of data on my part? You certianly don't lack confidence in your opinions if you cannot tell them apart from empirical evidence. Tom said I'm not surprised you don't want to learn more. And yet you continue to surprise me with your misrepresentations of my desires and intentions and thoughts. Tom said You already know the smoking gun doesn't exist. See above about your misrepresentations. I said Nonsense. I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be sufficiently supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence. Is that asking too much? Tom said So you're saying that you want scientifically valid positive evidence of amp sound and can't find any? That's my point. I said No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying I want claims of scientifically definitive facts to be sufficiently supported by a substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence. What is so hard to understand about this that you have to rephrase my words and wreck it's meaning? Tom said That's my point exactly. No interested party has delivered a single shred of evidence that high-end amp sound exists, let alone a "substantial body of scientifically valid empirical evidence." What's so hard to understand about that? Nothing. Maybe you have me confused with someone who is making assertions of scientifically valid proof of such. Tom said What other evidence do you have? I said Personal experience. So far that carries the most wieght. Tom said An undocumented anecdotal report from a person that admittedly has not investigated the existing evidence 'carries' the most weight with you? Why are you carping about Clark and Masters then? You are taking things out of context and twisting the meaning now. i have been quite clear that my experience is not empirical evidence for anyone else. You are also ignoring the fact that meaning of the evidence on the table is not conclusive IMO. If you continue to choose to ignore this when describing how I weigh evidence then you will simply just continue to misrepresent my thoughts on the issue. This will not make your arguments more convincing to me. Tom said You have to show me a peer-reviewed report that has convincing evidence that amps have a sound of their own before you can reject the other evidence (all 2 dozen of them.) I said If I made a claim as you have about the scientifically proven certainty the audibility of amps i would indeed have to show you the evidence. You are the one making the claim and you are the one with the burden of proof. My claims of the audibility of amps is purely anecdotal and I make no assertions that it rises above the reliability of anecdotal evidence. Tom said And my assertion is that no one has verified high-end amp sound as reported anecdotally and in the high-end press. What's so hard to understand about that without misrepresenting it? It's easy to understand but you have asserted far more than this before. Is this all you wish to assert on the subject now? That no peer reviewed evidence exists that shows amps sound different? I wouldn't debate that. i know of none. But then i know of no peer reviewed *evidence* that would show they don't have a sound either. Are you setting up a double standard now for positive results and null results? the Clark test we have been talking about was not peer reviewed. Tom said Of course, there's no stopping you from keeping the blinders on And I guess there is no stopping you from burning straw men and continuing to misrepresent my position and beliefs and opinions. Tom said but you're reduced to the 'I heard it once and now that I've made up my mind there's no amount of contrary evidence that cannot be ignored or pronounced inconclusive.' Wrong. regardless of your efforts, I have not been reduced to your misrepresentations such as this one. Tom said This is just another, not so clever, form of the sample size (you haven't tested every amplifier that has ever existed or every human that has ever lived) argument. Balony. Tom said How is that any worse than not having peer-reviewed evidence of amp sound? I said It is no worse if someone is making claims that it has been scientifically proven that amps sound different. That doesn't seem to be the case though does it? Tom said No it doesn't. Why are you still arguing? I said Because you are still making assertions that you claim are scientifically proven facts without the requisite scientifically valid supportive empirical evidence. Tom said Nope I've only said that no one has proven these differences exist. If that is all you are saying fine. I don't think this is all you are saying though. It seems you have been asserting that absense of proof of a positive is conclusive proof of a negative in this particular issue. Tom said Yet, all apologists still profess they do. You do. Yet another misrepresentation. They are getting tiresome. Tom said No one has verified amp sound; I said No one as far as I can see has vierifed it's nonexistance to the level you claim, that being a scientifically valid fact. Tom said Again why does one have to? For the same reason one would have to prove any other claim of scientifically valid fact. Tom said I'm not claiming anything special about my amplifiers. Straw man. you are making specific claims about their sound. Tom said They sound just like every other nominally competent amplifier I've ever encountered. See. You are making assertions about how they sound. I said If I were to exaggerate the reliability of my beliefs on the subject that would be a different matter. Tom said As if you were the only interested party. What? have you taken an interest in my anecdotes? Are you now giving them more wieght than you ought to? I said Not only that the testors never measured the test for sensitivity Tom said Sohow would they have done that to your satisfaction? What did you think of the 20+ other experiments with similar results? I said Simple. introduce known audible differences into the test and gauge the confidence levels that each listener can discern those differences at decending levels of those added audible differences. Tom said Doesn't the Bell Labs data on human hearing sensitivity count? I said I suspect it does. Did Bell Labs come in and test all of these cited tests for sensitivity? Tom said They didn't have to. They tested the known thresholds for human audibility. Clark verifed that those levels were not exceeded prior to the test. I must have missed the part where Clark tested the system for sensitivity to all known thresholds of human audibility and measured all the amps and varified them they had no measurable differences that could possibly be audible. i'll check the article again. But, has your sensitivity been tested by Bell Labs? If not; you don't qualify either then. If i were to be used in listening tests that were going to be used for scientifically valid empirical evidence I would expect to be tested for such sensitivities. Tom said human hearing sensitivity count? Clark's work tested for introduction of known audible cause (level, frequency response, excessive distortion). Once these qualities have been verified to be below the human threshold of audibility what else is left? I said I didn't see that in the article. Tom said Then you should read it. I did. I will review it again. I said I saw no indication that the reference system and the listeners were tested for known barely audible differences. Tom said Such as? Level, frequency response? You demand that every listener have an Audiogram? Then you'll have to discount every anecdotal report EVEN YOUR OWN I'd say. I do discount every anecdotal report including my own as scientifically valid conclusive evidence of anything. Tom said Oh, the mysterious 'amp sound' that has never been shown to be audible if not a function of the causes just listed. You cannot verify differences that have never been shown to exist. I said I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Tom said That's because one cannot test a listener for sensitivity to differences (amp-sound) that have never been shown to exist prior other than an open listening session prior to test. That was accomplished. I said they should tested for sensitivity to *known* barely audible differences. I saw no report of any such testing of the listeners. And here I must call it a night. the post is simply too long and the time is too late. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
| FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
| A quick study in very recent RAHE moderator inconsistency | Audio Opinions | |||
| System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
| gps install: how to mix its audio (voice prompting) with head unit audio-out? | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
