To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

wrote:
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:


I don't believe anyone here denies that sighted bias exists. The question is
how to eliminate or control for it in audio component comparisons, without
obscuring what you are testing for in the first place. DBTs applied in the
manner suggested by the objectivists do not seem to be the solution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.


I read the article you linked but I failed to see the part about which
amplifier the rats preferred ;-).
Regards,
Mike

One person here says it is as simple as placing a cloth over connections
of the item under test, all other visual clues remaining. Just turn out
the lights, or more conventionally, a dbx setup where all visual clues are
present at all times and the test is in full control of the testee.
Removing knowledge of visual clues is simple, not knowing which item is
under test is the thing that makes the results the same as random choice
would produce. What the artcle shows is the perception of "real
difference" can be explained by the adjacent perception process of hearing
and seeing in the physical brain. The tests which remove knowing which
visual clue goes with which hearing event makes this process random, or
more likely it doesn't happen at all because visual clues remain the same
while hearing clues change without the testee's knowledge. This can be
reversed too, in the instance where hearing and seeing clues remain the
same but the testee is told a switch is made, we know that produces
results based on another kind of bias of expectation which is entirely the
product of the perception process cut off from the actual clues as intake.

I don't believe anyone here denies that sighted bias exists. The question is
how to eliminate or control for it in audio component comparisons, without
obscuring what you are testing for in the first place. DBTs applied in the
manner suggested by the objectivists do not seem to be the solution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.


I read the article you linked but I failed to see the part about which
amplifier the rats preferred ;-).
Regards,
Mike

On 20 Feb 2004 20:58:02 GMT, wrote:

What the artcle shows is the perception of "real
difference" can be explained by the adjacent perception process of hearing
and seeing in the physical brain.

The article as given (not the original publication, btw) only suggests
a possible physical basis for your proposition. It does not explain
it.

Kal

I don't take your point, the two terms in this context seems a case of a
difference without a distinction. Any scientific "explanation" is at the
same time a "suggestion" of an application of an observed principle.
Brain activity in the seeing area spills over into the hearing area,
exciting perceptions that are not inherent in the physical sound waves as
they arive at the ear. Remove the adjacent excitation and the perception
receeds in the hearing area, that is the thesis as the research
suggests/explains. That is why the subjectivist can claim with such vigor
that something is really happening, it is, but only as a perception
product and not a realistic experience of the physical event. The
perception experience is so vivid as to motivate the adoption of any
number of explanations/suggestions in an attempt to tie it back into the
physical realm. The oft repeated "just trust yyour ears" is in fact
perhaps not an appeal to the function of the ear but the spill over in
adjacent areas that are down stream of ears.

The article as given (not the original publication, btw) only suggests
a possible physical basis for your proposition. It does not explain
it.

Kal

wrote:



To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

So if I want to change the sound of my Parasound amplifier, all I have to do is
put a Pass next to it? How about a photograph of a Pass? I'd call that a great
example of "equalization."

wrote:
I don't take your point, the two terms in this context seems a case of a
difference without a distinction. Any scientific "explanation" is at the
same time a "suggestion" of an application of an observed principle.

I've read the paper and the page you cited. One could use it to speculate
that sight might be necessary to *increase* hearing sensitivity by activating
those 'border' neurons, and vice
versa. It could be used as well as to speculate that it gie a basis for
the *spuriousness* of sighed perceptions sound, as you have done.
But in fact neither thing was actually tested.

Brain activity in the seeing area spills over into the hearing area,
exciting perceptions that are not inherent in the physical sound waves as
they arive at the ear. Remove the adjacent excitation and the perception
receeds in the hearing area, that is the thesis as the research
suggests/explains.

But in a real DBT, the adjacent excitation is not necessarily removed at all.
Most DBT subjects aren't literally deprived of visual input.

It seems to me that using the study to support either view, is premature.

That is why the subjectivist can claim with such vigor
that something is really happening, it is, but only as a perception
product and not a realistic experience of the physical event. The
perception experience is so vivid as to motivate the adoption of any
number of explanations/suggestions in an attempt to tie it back into the
physical realm. The oft repeated "just trust yyour ears" is in fact
perhaps not an appeal to the function of the ear but the spill over in
adjacent areas that are down stream of ears.

But there is no evidence that the border visual neurons *aren't* firing in a DBT
too, or are firing any differently than in a 'sighted' test.
What the paper shows is that when visual , somatosensory (touch)
or audio input is present, there is robust activity in the expected
cortical areas, and there is also low-level
neural activity in cortical areas that are unexpected, based on the
parcelling paradigm. Some of these neurons actually appear to be
'multisensory' -- they respond to stimulus of more than one kind.

Note that the visual input in this case is flashes or moving bars of light
against a dark background (or its negative image) , i.e., a
'moving' or 'active' or 'tracking' visual stimulus...which
is hardly representative of what is going on in audio comparison.
Teh audio stimulus consisted of hisses, clicks, chirps and other
'complex;' sounds', but not, I suspect, music. ;
It's interesting that hisses and clicks and chirps were usedm
since one might think that things like hissing and chirping
would set of all kinds of instinctual alarms in a rat.

Btw, somatosensory stimulus consisted of deflections of hair or
skin using a camel's hair brush ...or,far more
ominously, of 'stimulation of deep tissue by using probes and manual
manipulation.' Anyone care to discuss the implications of THAT
for audio comparison? ;

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:05:35 GMT, wrote:

I don't take your point, the two terms in this context seems a case of a
difference without a distinction. Any scientific "explanation" is at the
same time a "suggestion" of an application of an observed principle.

It is the difference between reading the findings or the discussion of
a scientific paper. In the former, the data is presented. In the
latter, the significance of the data is discussed with, one hopes,
reasonable speculation of the meaning.

Brain activity in the seeing area spills over into the hearing area,
exciting perceptions that are not inherent in the physical sound waves as
they arive at the ear. Remove the adjacent excitation and the perception
receeds in the hearing area, that is the thesis as the research
suggests/explains.

I think that is what the electrical recordings can suggest but without
correlated psychophysics. (Unless I missed such reference.) As I
said, this is a second-hand report and there may be more in the real
paper although it is the speculations that are usually pumped up in
the popular reports.

That is why the subjectivist can claim with such vigor
that something is really happening, it is, but only as a perception
product and not a realistic experience of the physical event. The
perception experience is so vivid as to motivate the adoption of any
number of explanations/suggestions in an attempt to tie it back into the
physical realm. The oft repeated "just trust yyour ears" is in fact
perhaps not an appeal to the function of the ear but the spill over in
adjacent areas that are down stream of ears.

No argument with this thesis and the relevance of the report but,
again, I fail to see any proof of the thesis. The overlap in what
have been regarded as specialised cortical areas and, indeed, their
plasticity is now accepted and a hot area of investigation.

Kal

The difference in a dbt test is that specific knowledge is absent as to
which bit of gear, both visually present with the same set of clues, as
the sound clues change. Any visual stimulation is then a constant. The
link into perception in a sighted test is that one knows that the pass
labs is in the chain and not the yamaha, with a combination of specific
visual clues and anticipation bias perception at play. Remove the
specific link and results should tend toward random in nature, as they do
apparently. The anticipation bias perception is revealed when the same bit
of gear is in fact in the chain at all times but the testee is told
switching is occuring with their knowledge between the yamaha and pass
labs in full sight, and reports tend away from random, as they apparently
do. In the latter case, the visual clues combined with the false
knowledge of which amp is active is the full package of input stimulation,
which again stimulates the spill over boundry of the hearing area from the
visual.

Another related kind of test has been done with humans. It is reported
that merely changing the color of the grill cloth creates reports of
difference in sound. Whatever one's perspective on the merits of which
kind of testing, that bit of perception must be accounted for in some
model of human perception. The kind of perception stimulation in adjacent
areas the research shows suggests itself in this instance also and
supports the strength of how visual clues can influence; dare we say
distort, the perception of hearing.


I don't take your point, the two terms in this context seems a case of a
difference without a distinction. Any scientific "explanation" is at the
same time a "suggestion" of an application of an observed principle.

I've read the paper and the page you cited. One could use it to speculate
that sight might be necessary to *increase* hearing sensitivity by activating
those 'border' neurons, and vice
versa. It could be used as well as to speculate that it gie a basis for
the *spuriousness* of sighed perceptions sound, as you have done.
But in fact neither thing was actually tested.

Brain activity in the seeing area spills over into the hearing area,
exciting perceptions that are not inherent in the physical sound waves as
they arive at the ear. Remove the adjacent excitation and the perception
receeds in the hearing area, that is the thesis as the research
suggests/explains.

But in a real DBT, the adjacent excitation is not necessarily removed at all.
Most DBT subjects aren't literally deprived of visual input.

It seems to me that using the study to support either view, is premature.

That is why the subjectivist can claim with such vigor
that something is really happening, it is, but only as a perception
product and not a realistic experience of the physical event. The
perception experience is so vivid as to motivate the adoption of any
number of explanations/suggestions in an attempt to tie it back into the
physical realm. The oft repeated "just trust yyour ears" is in fact
perhaps not an appeal to the function of the ear but the spill over in
adjacent areas that are down stream of ears.

But there is no evidence that the border visual neurons *aren't* firing in a DB
T
too, or are firing any differently than in a 'sighted' test.
What the paper shows is that when visual , somatosensory (touch)
or audio input is present, there is robust activity in the expected
cortical areas, and there is also low-level
neural activity in cortical areas that are unexpected, based on the
parcelling paradigm. Some of these neurons actually appear to be
'multisensory' -- they respond to stimulus of more than one kind.

Note that the visual input in this case is flashes or moving bars of light
against a dark background (or its negative image) , i.e., a
'moving' or 'active' or 'tracking' visual stimulus...which
is hardly representative of what is going on in audio comparison.
Teh audio stimulus consisted of hisses, clicks, chirps and other
'complex;' sounds', but not, I suspect, music. ;
It's interesting that hisses and clicks and chirps were usedm
since one might think that things like hissing and chirping
would set of all kinds of instinctual alarms in a rat.

Btw, somatosensory stimulus consisted of deflections of hair or
skin using a camel's hair brush ...or,far more
ominously, of 'stimulation of deep tissue by using probes and manual
manipulation.' Anyone care to discuss the implications of THAT
for audio comparison? ;

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

wrote:
The difference in a dbt test is that specific knowledge is absent as to
which bit of gear, both visually present with the same set of clues, as
the sound clues change.
Any visual stimulation is then a constant. The
link into perception in a sighted test is that one knows that the pass
labs is in the chain and not the yamaha, with a combination of specific
visual clues and anticipation bias perception at play. Remove the
specific link and results should tend toward random in nature, as they do
apparently. The anticipation bias perception is revealed when the same bit
of gear is in fact in the chain at all times but the testee is told
switching is occuring with their knowledge between the yamaha and pass
labs in full sight, and reports tend away from random, as they apparently
do. In the latter case, the visual clues combined with the false
knowledge of which amp is active is the full package of input stimulation,
which again stimulates the spill over boundry of the hearing area from the
visual.

Have you read the paper?

There's nothing in it about anticipation bias
or its effects on boundary neuron firing. And the sorts of stimuli tested
are not immediately applicable to amp comparisons. It was not a test
of sighted versus DB comparison, and only by a strenuous stretch of
logic can it be said to impact on that. Your claims above constitute a
hypothesis at best, not a logical conclusion fromt he results.

Another related kind of test has been done with humans. It is reported
that merely changing the color of the grill cloth creates reports of
difference in sound. Whatever one's perspective on the merits of which
kind of testing, that bit of perception must be accounted for in some
model of human perception.

It can be accounted for without reference to the study in question.

The kind of perception stimulation in adjacent
areas the research shows suggests itself in this instance also and
supports the strength of how visual clues can influence; dare we say
distort, the perception of hearing.

one, changing the grill color of a speaker was not the kind of visual stimulus
tested in the experiments.

two, there is nothing in the paper that indicates the firing of
boundary neurons *distorts* perception, so we dare not say that.

Allow me to reiterate:

It seems to me that using the study to support either view, is premature.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

I can hear differences between cables.

I can hear differences between amps.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:33:10 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Using Occam's razor, the simplest explanation for the fact that hear
differences among cables and amps is that there are audible
differences between cables and amps.

Nope, Occam's razor suggests that there are no real differences, and
that you are experiencing sighted bias. This is because sighted bias
has been known about for many decades, and there is *no* mechanism for
'cable sound'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

Using Occam's razor, the simplest explanation for the fact that hear
differences among cables and amps is that there are audible
differences between cables and amps.

Wrong, because one is supposed to consider all the evidence, before
applying Occam's Razor to arrive at the simplest reason.
By your reasoning, any faulty perception is
more likely to be accurate, than not, because you are considering
it in isolation of all other data.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
wrote in message news:IqsZb.23804$Xp.103599@attbi_s54...
To add to the continuing attempt to suggest sighted bias doesn't exist or
is a natural product of the human perception process, consider:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220074652.htm

In short, while different areas of the brain are used to interpret input
from the various senses, there is overlap in the areas such that sight can
influence sound perception. Seeing a yamaha and pass labs amp side by
side and doing sighted "tests" will trigger this overlap, make it
imposibble to know which amp is being used and the "tests" do as well as
random choices; just as the now famious test demonstrated.

I can hear differences between cables.

I can hear differences between amps.

But you don't know if those differences are real.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

Is that a fact? It's wonder they don't douse the lights completely at
concerts, then.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.

Fine, but where's the evidence that that avoids the pitfalls of *knowing*
which DUT is in the circuit?


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

Is that a fact? It's wonder they don't douse the lights completely at
concerts, then.

Not if you realize that concerts serve an experience that includes seeing
musicians perform. Seeing musicians perform allows one to appreciate a
performance that hearing it alone, no matter how clearly it is heard that way,
does not allow. Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system. It is suggested
that visual knowledge of which gear is active provides the overlap in the
hearing and seeing parts of the brain, in addition to the anticipation
bias of which is thought to provide some difference beforehand. Dark
listening only eliminates one of the perception altering sources. The
thing to do would be dark listening without knowing which bit of gear is
active, which would remove the anticipation bias also. One way to remove
the visual input would be to have both bits of gear contained in boxes of
identical appearence, or just put a cloth over the connections obscuring
which is active; as has been suggested. If removing this knowledge
produces results tending to random, as it apparently does, then we know
knowledge of what is active is a perception distorting input.

If someone wants to test level of illumination as a varible, it can be
tested, but I fear it a waste of time. This has been done already in
another form. It has been shown that blind folk do no better in hearing
differences then do sighted people when knowledge of what gear is active
is absent.

S888Wheel wrote:
Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access. Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias. The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

Is that a fact? It's wonder they don't douse the lights completely at
concerts, then.

Not if you realize that concerts serve an experience that includes seeing
musicians perform. Seeing musicians perform allows one to appreciate a
performance that hearing it alone, no matter how clearly it is heard that way,
does not allow.


By the same token, seeing the components allows one to 'appreciate' a system's
performance in a way that hearing them alone, does not. But that
'appreciation' has nothing necessarily to with determining audible difference.
It's just another way to enjoy your experience.

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:

....large snips....

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?


Interesting. Can you expand on this some more?

By the same token, seeing the components allows one to 'appreciate' a
system's
performance in a way that hearing them alone, does not. But that
'appreciation' has nothing necessarily to with determining audible
difference.
It's just another way to enjoy your experience.

I agree with this. I enjoy good looking equipment and I enjoy a aesthetically
pleasing listening envirement. It does make for a better experience over all.



Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?

I have never been to such an audition.

Nousaine wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

...large snips....

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?


Interesting. Can you expand on this some more?

It'd done to prevent sex or racial bias from influencing the
evaluation. But my point is that during a crucial stage of
comparing musicians' performances, apparently the 'visual'
aspect is not considered necessary.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Nousaine wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

...large snips....

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?


Interesting. Can you expand on this some more?

It'd done to prevent sex or racial bias from influencing the
evaluation. But my point is that during a crucial stage of
comparing musicians' performances, apparently the 'visual'
aspect is not considered necessary.

Or worse, actually impairs objective judgment. For an academic discussion of
this (by a couple of economists), download paper #376 at this page:

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/rouse/working_papers.html

The applicability of this to audio is limited, because orchestra auditions,
unlike audio comparisons, are about artistic judgments, not sonic ones. But
it is one more piece of evidence for our inability to isolate what we hear
from what we see.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

...large snips....

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?


Interesting. Can you expand on this some more?

apropos my other post, it should be noted that the auditions are "monadic"
and "sequential" and "evaluative". Each contestant is judged in turn and
rated in each round. Generally there are preliminary auditions, semi-final
auditions, and final auditions. Usually each round features different
pieces of music. I do not recall how they handle position bias...perhaps by
drawing out of a hat like the starting gate of a horse race.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

...large snips....

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?


Interesting. Can you expand on this some more?

I can. Contestants for audition do all of the preliminaries behind a screen
so the judges can judge them only on their playing, not on their age,
appearance, or sex. Some orchestras do the final contestant judging behind
the screen as well; other's do the final screening sighted. Usually, the
winner's personality is judged as well after the fact...somebody extremely
difficult to get along with may be rejected in favor of number two.

It should be noted here that the assumption is that there *will* be
differences in playing, and that visual differences do not matter, at least
until the end. So the trick is to evaluate the playing independent of the
source. It is not a question of "can we hear differences".

On 24 Feb 2004 17:01:06 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I can hear differences between cables.

So you claim, but you provide no reliable evidence that this is so.

I can hear differences between amps.

So you claim, but you provide no reliable evidence that this is so.

Curiously, I can hear these differences better when I turn out the
lights and allow my hearing full access.

So can everyone else - if such differences actually exist. Of course,
we can also imagine so many things when it's dark................

Perhaps those who claim
'sighted' tests are invalid are picking the wrong reason, if they
claim that 'knowing' which amp is being tested causes bias.

No, it's a well-established and easily proved problem.

The
simple fact is that listening in a lighted room causes your brain to
expend energy on vision and have less 'processing power' left for
hearing.

True, but irrelevant to the question.

When I conduct comparative tests, I always use extended in-the-dark
listening.

As do most of us, I'm sure. This however has *nothing* to do with
'sighted' testing, which is concerned only with *knowledge* of which
item is connected.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Bob Marcus" wrote: ( blind orchestral auditions)
The applicability of this to audio is limited, because orchestra auditions,
unlike audio comparisons, are about artistic judgments, not sonic ones. But
it is one more piece of evidence for our inability to isolate what we hear
from what we see.


No, that is not correct. Artistic judgement in this case is still a sonic
judgement. Audio component evaluations similarly are about judging
"musicality" based on the listener's priorities (tonal accuracy, dynamic
contrasts, resolution of detail, bass slam, etc.). There is no reason this
would not be an effective way to evaluate a component - single blind. It is
only when one must compare two components blind and match it to an "X' that
this type of evaluation runs into problems.
Regards,
Mike

I was hoping this would not become yet another abx toss. If listening
results tend to random for any kind of test done using any guidelines as
long as knowledge of the active gear is not known, evaluation of any other
factor is of no import. A "musical" evaluation using any vocabulary
affords us little if they can't be assigned to a bit of gear when it is
not known. Not being able to do better then random says further other
kinds of listening tests tell us nothing except that the perception
process will assign "values" when asked to do so. This is the case when
the only change in a variable is the false knowledge that two bits are
being tested when in fact only one is ever active; but any manner of
"musical" perceptions are still assigned. I was, and remain, interested
to explore this reality of testing and the first obvious place to look for
the reported differences; in the perception process of the brain
independent of the actual physical signal reaching the ears.

"No, that is not correct. Artistic judgement in this case is still a sonic
judgement. Audio component evaluations similarly are about judging
"musicality" based on the listener's priorities (tonal accuracy, dynamic
contrasts, resolution of detail, bass slam, etc.). There is no reason
this would not be an effective way to evaluate a component - single blind.
It is only when one must compare two components blind and match it to an
"X' that this type of evaluation runs into problems."

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:gJ7%b.403131$xy6.2303272@attbi_s02...
"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
*snip*
apropos my other post, it should be noted that the auditions are "monadic"
and "sequential" and "evaluative". Each contestant is judged in turn and
rated in each round. Generally there are preliminary auditions,
semi-final
auditions, and final auditions. Usually each round features different
pieces of music. I do not recall how they handle position bias...perhaps
by
drawing out of a hat like the starting gate of a horse race.

Drawing out of a hat doesn't do anything to control position bias, it just
minimizes the unfairness of it by taking away the possibility of
premeditation.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

...large snips....

Keep the lights on at concerts please. Even if it makes for a
less pure listening experience

Ever notice that orchestra auditions these days involve a blind
judging component?


Interesting. Can you expand on this some more?

I can. Contestants for audition do all of the preliminaries behind a screen
so the judges can judge them only on their playing, not on their age,
appearance, or sex.

OK; but aren't those the same kinds of personal bias mechanisms compensated in
other controlled listening tests? It's not dependent on the actual bias
mechanism present but that non-performance factors are precluded at the
decision point.

And HOW do they accomplish that? By "blinding" the evaluators? Gee; what a good
idea.

Some orchestras do the final contestant judging behind
the screen as well; other's do the final screening sighted. Usually, the
winner's personality is judged as well after the fact...somebody extremely
difficult to get along with may be rejected in favor of number two.

OK; so some people also reject high-end speaker systems because they don't
disappear as easily as a Bose Lifestyle system. Tell us something we didn't
already know.


It should be noted here that the assumption is that there *will* be
differences in playing, and that visual differences do not matter, at least
until the end. So the trick is to evaluate the playing independent of the
source.

Good that's the entire idea of ALL bias-controlled tests.

It is not a question of "can we hear differences".

Do artists ever "tie" in performance?

"Harry Lavo" wrote:
I can. Contestants for audition do all of the preliminaries behind a screen
so the judges can judge them only on their playing, not on their age,
appearance, or sex.


"Nousaine" wrote in message
OK; but aren't those the same kinds of personal bias mechanisms compensated
in
other controlled listening tests? It's not dependent on the actual bias
mechanism present but that non-performance factors are precluded at the
decision point.

And HOW do they accomplish that? By "blinding" the evaluators? Gee; what a
good
idea.


Some orchestras do the final contestant judging behind
the screen as well; other's do the final screening sighted. Usually, the
winner's personality is judged as well after the fact...somebody extremely
difficult to get along with may be rejected in favor of number two.


OK; so some people also reject high-end speaker systems because they don't
disappear as easily as a Bose Lifestyle system. Tell us something we didn't
already know.


It should be noted here that the assumption is that there *will* be
differences in playing, and that visual differences do not matter, at least
until the end. So the trick is to evaluate the playing independent of the
source.


Good that's the entire idea of ALL bias-controlled tests.

It is not a question of "can we hear differences".

Do artists ever "tie" in performance?


Most likely they do tie if they are rated on any type of value scale - like
Olympic skaters, for example.

It's interesting to me that in these "blind" orchestral auditions, *expectation
bias*, which we've been told over and over by the objectivists is so big a
factor, it swamps differences, is not even considered by the judges. They use
"serial monadic" testing in orchestral auditions (much like audio equipment
reviewers). There are NO double blind ABX-type tests being used here.

To take this a step further - if the orchestral audition judges were to tape a
couple of the performances and put them to a panel DBT - I suspect the result
would be null - *no differences* between the two performances (even though we
know there are differences - like amplifiers that measure differently.).
Regards,
Mike

In article sTr%b.65880$4o.87426@attbi_s52, Mkuller wrote:
It's interesting to me that in these "blind" orchestral auditions, *expectation
bias*, which we've been told over and over by the objectivists is so big a
factor, it swamps differences, is not even considered by the judges. They use
"serial monadic" testing in orchestral auditions (much like audio equipment
reviewers). There are NO double blind ABX-type tests being used here.

That's because an ABX isn't interesting. The ABX would be expected to
show a difference -- which is exactly what's expected here. There's no
surprise to anyone that two violin players aren't going to be exactly
alike. Have you ever heard anyone say that two competent violin players
are going to be audibly identical? Then why would you want to use a test
that is designed to differentiate things?

The orchestral auditions are interested in finding out which player is
best for the group. This includes a percentage of "better player" and a
factor of "sticks to what's written" and another of "good
interpretation" and yet more of... whatever the orchestra is looking
for.

To take this a step further - if the orchestral audition judges were to tape a
couple of the performances and put them to a panel DBT - I suspect the result
would be null - *no differences* between the two performances (even though we
know there are differences - like amplifiers that measure differently.).

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone assert that, and I find it
laughably wrong. Not only will the two recordings sound different, they
will measure differently as well.

-dsr-

"It's interesting to me that in these "blind" orchestral auditions,
*expectation
bias*, which we've been told over and over by the objectivists is so big a
factor, it swamps differences, is not even considered by the judges. They
use
"serial monadic" testing in orchestral auditions (much like audio
equipment
reviewers). There are NO double blind ABX-type tests being used here.

To take this a step further - if the orchestral audition judges were to
tape a
couple of the performances and put them to a panel DBT - I suspect the
result
would be null - *no differences* between the two performances (even though
we
know there are differences - like amplifiers that measure differently.)."

Ah, it is the very fact of anticipation bias that they are evaluated
behind a screen, just as to eliminate brand knowledge, any manner of
personal knowledge is eliminated. As for recording performances, I would
be surprised if the judges could not distinguish between, it is almost
impossible to dublicate exactly a performance. Often small expressive
variation is put in on purpose from performance to performance. I fail to
see any comparsion to the audio test where knowledge of gear is
controlled, regardless if the test is done in a serial or in a side by
side manner.

Mkuller wrote:

It's interesting to me that in these "blind" orchestral auditions, *expectation
bias*, which we've been told over and over by the objectivists is so big a
factor, it swamps differences, is not even considered by the judges. They use
"serial monadic" testing in orchestral auditions (much like audio equipment
reviewers). There are NO double blind ABX-type tests being used here.


I and others have tried to tell you repeatedly but you just don't get it:

The reason is that the differences in musical performances are NOT even
NEAR the acoustical thresholds of detection. Unlike the differences between
say, cables, they are way OVER. This a FACT and it is very simple. If you
don't accept it, you're denying yourself essential basic knowledge. Period.
You are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is. And it is a
very uninformed one. Lots of people and groups hold uninformed opinions,
that fact alone does not mean anything.


To take this a step further - if the orchestral audition judges were to tape a
couple of the performances and put them to a panel DBT - I suspect the result
would be null - *no differences* between the two performances (even though we
know there are differences - like amplifiers that measure differently.).

You 'suspect' incorrectly, and furthermore, confuse what is being auditioned:
the performer NOT the judges. This is where I disagree with some here in
that it is the device that is being tested, NOT the listener. Ironically,
the subjectivist claims that blind tests are invalid force them
(subjectivists) to be put in the position of being evaluated themselves.
Then they complain when confronted with basic objective information that shows
them to be incorrect. Very odd.


Your 'suspicion' could only be true if judges are untrained. I've particiapted
in scholarship performance competitions where a wide spectrum of instruments and
performers applied, and the judges did not have the necessary background to cover
many situations. The comments of judges who were unfamiliar with a particular
instrument or its repetoire get to be downright bizzare, not unlike subjectivist
audio reveiwers who are (usually) untrained in the essential skills to do
the job they are doing.

You've got a whole elaborate structure in your mind that is that is based on wrong
information. And it collapses when it's subjected to external scrutiny.
If exercising that structure gives you personal pleasure, I encourage you to do so.
Your insistance though, that it is externally factual is demonstrably
untrue. Why do you continue?

Mkuller wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote: ( blind orchestral
auditions)

Audio component evaluations similarly are about judging
"musicality" based on the listener's priorities (tonal accuracy, dynamic
contrasts, resolution of detail, bass slam, etc.).


And what are the orchestral auditioners listening for? Tonal accuracy,
pace,
dynamic contrasts, etc.

Not at all--at least not in the sense that those terms are used by
audiophiles. They're listening for virtuosic playing, artistic
interpretation, etc. Tonal accuracy is meaningless when everybody's using a
different violin.

Just because you slap the label "musicality" on a sonic characteristic
(or
set of sonic characteristics) does not mean that you are making an
artistic
judgment when you compare the sound of two audio components.

So what do *you* listen for when comparing two audio components for
purchase?

What do *you* listen for when you attend a concert? Tonal accuracy??

To the extent
that there is "art" involved in an audio comparison, it is being held
constant--because you are using the same recording.


And in the orchestral audition, the constant is the same piece of music. In
both you are evaluating the ability of the music (or the reproduction) to
communicate the emotional response intended by the composer.

Tonal accuracy, in the audio sense, has nothing whatsoever to do with the
composer's intentions. No two performances of a piece will ever be tonally
identical. They'll be played by different people on different instruments in
different halls, all factors that will result in tonal differences orders of
magnitude greater than those introduced even by speakers, let alone cables
and amps. If a composer were depending on tonal accuracy to convey his
emotional meaning, he'd be one frustrated artist.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S.
locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

You are simply asserting something that is not known to be true. I
claim that 'sighted' listening is less accurate NOT because you 'know'
what's in the system, but because your brain is using a lot of energy
on vision. If I litsen during the day, I close my eyes....

You have submitted no evidence for your claim that 'bias' is at fault,
when I have offered a mechanism known to exist...

"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:sTr%b.65880$4o.87426@attbi_s52...

To take this a step further - if the orchestral audition judges were
to tape a
couple of the performances and put them to a panel DBT - I suspect
the result
would be null - *no differences* between the two performances (even
though we
know there are differences - like amplifiers that measure
differently.).
Regards,
Mike

Whoa there. I'd hate to have to back that statement up. I'm quite
sure that orchestral audition judges can tell the difference between 2
different performances of the same material with the greatest of
ease--at least if the material is familiar. They may not agree on
which performance is the best, but you can bet they can tell one from
the other.

Norm Strong

Mkuller wrote:
So what do *you* listen for when comparing two audio components for
purchase?


"Bob Marcus" wrote:
What do *you* listen for when you attend a concert? Tonal accuracy??


No, I listen for *tonal color, expression, pace, and dynamics* when I attend a
live concert. And I want to be able to hear all of those artistic nuances
through my stereo system.

You didn't answer the question about what you listen for in your audio
components.
Regards,
Mike

On 27 Feb 2004 16:53:40 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

wrote in message news:e4P_b.6984$AL.139593@attbi_s03...
Someone said they use extended listening in the dark to avoid light
stimulation and do hear differences. The key is not the level of
illumination but the knowledge of which is in the system.

You are simply asserting something that is not known to be true.

Actually, it *is* known to be true, and can easily be demonstrated.

I claim that 'sighted' listening is less accurate NOT because you 'know'
what's in the system, but because your brain is using a lot of energy
on vision. If I litsen during the day, I close my eyes....

That however, is indeed an assertion which is known to be untrue.

You have submitted no evidence for your claim that 'bias' is at fault,

There is a mass of such evidence available - why do you choose to
ignore it? Solipsism is no substitute for hard evidence....

when I have offered a mechanism known to exist...

Your mechanism does indeed exist, but it won't allow you to hear
differences which are below audibility, such as those among cables, or
good amplifiers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Mkuller" wrote
To take this a step further - if the orchestral audition judges were
to tape a
couple of the performances and put them to a panel DBT - I suspect
the result
would be null - *no differences* between the two performances (even
though we
know there are differences - like amplifiers that measure
differently.).


"normanstrong" wrote:
Whoa there. I'd hate to have to back that statement up. I'm quite
sure that orchestral audition judges can tell the difference between 2
different performances of the same material with the greatest of
ease--at least if the material is familiar. They may not agree on
which performance is the best, but you can bet they can tell one from
the other.


How about if the DBT panel was made up of *average audiophiles* like those
used in the comparisons between audio components to prove there are no
differences - where the results are always null?
Regards,
Mike

Mkuller wrote:

No, I listen for *tonal color, expression, pace, and dynamics* when I attend a
live concert.

In previous post he wrote:

"And what are the orchestral auditioners listening for? Tonal accuracy,
pace, dymanic contrasts, etc."

Is it just me, or does anybody else see a problem here?

In the case of different performers doing the same piece:

"How about if the DBT panel was made up of *average audiophiles* like
those
used in the comparisons between audio components to prove there are no
differences - where the results are always null?"

It should be a piece of cake. Humans are very adept at discriminating
differences of pattern in sounds. This is why we can distinguish one
voice from another easily over the phone, a very frequency and dynamic
range limited device with a good amount of distortion. Pattern
recognition is a different ability then is the ability to discriminate
differences in the reproduction of the same sound source. Even with the
same performer doing different pieces of music, it becomes easy to know
who it is by the change in pattern of performance they overlay upon the
music,ie. we learn to know it is "so and so" doing that series of pieces.
We can also learn to hear this in historical time periods of the composer
and cohort,ie. it is baroque etc. and likely mozart even without having
heard the specific piece before.