| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#522
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: I have yet to see *any* of the 'objectivists' have any problem with an extended *blind* test - except to note that many decades of experimentation have shown that this is in reality a *less* sensitive method of comparison. That's not my point. My point is how you, or anyone else, intuitively reacts to the request to compare two sources of sound. What *feels* like the best way to compare? I've met people who wanted to put the two sounds right next to each other in time, and others who wanted to sit with each one for a while. This is not a matter of sighted or blind, just a matter of how to compare generally. Whether this division aligns with the subjectivist/objectivist division, I don't know. For example, what makes sense to you (say, before you had read the research)? Do you now choose to use quick-switching based on the research? Or do you also feel intuitively like that is the best way to compare things? Good heavens, what does it matter what anyone's intuition was *before* they had read the research? The division betwen objectivists and subjectivists runs between those who have read the research and those who refuse to. bob |
|
#523
|
|||
|
|||
|
Look, FRIEND, this NOT a scientific experiment, and I never said it
was. It CANNOT be such. It is a product comparison, no more, no less. If you want to conduct scientific auditory tests, do so on your time and your dime. I claim that I heard a consistent difference between products or a consistent lack of difference between products. The simplest explanation for such an occurance is that the products themselves are responsible for these phenomena. There is no 'sophistry', and I am not going to give an inch. I heard what I heard, and I conducted the listening comparisons quite carefully. What you chose to believe is none of my business. What I buy or the reasons I buy it is none of your business. This is not and cannot be turned into a 'scientific experiment'. I have never represented it as such, and I'll be glad when you stop trying to distort what I say and what I do into something else. You will please refrain from doing so further. wrote: wrote: wrote: People frequently say that they hear a difference when there is no difference to be heard. Impossible to prove. Denial of reality again. This is so trivially true, and easily demonstrated empirically, that even many subjectivists won't deny it. And if all you're doing here is describing a purchasing decision, why are you so keen to deny it? Answer: Because that's not what you're doing at all. More below. snip I claim ONLY that I heard a difference whenever I made the switch, and without fail. This sort of claim requires no support, because it is a report merely of MY experience. Ever read Hume? Hume would easily see through your sophistry. You are not now claiming and have never claimed only that the two cables sounded different to you. You have consistently asserted that there IS an audible difference between them, which is what you (think you) heard. You consistently invoke your mere perception as evidence that this difference really exists. And you consistently deny--not challenge with countervailing argument, just baldly deny--all of the empirical work demonstrating that your mere perception is unconvincing as evidence that such a difference exists. And whenever the heat gets too great, and the scientific facts against you pile up too high, you retreat to your pose as a mere humble consumer trying to make a purchasing decision, so you aren't required to answer the scientific objections you have no answer for. That's sophistry, and you are not fooling anyone. bob |
|
#524
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: I agree with you that a difference in personal experience underlies the perspective of the two "camps"---or at least, I see such a difference in the posts I read here. For example, if you ask somebody to compare two pieces of equipment, and they sound quite similar (that is, they aren't grossly different), then I've noticed a couple different responses. Some people want to set up a quick-switching test. This is like getting closer and looking at finer and finer detail. Other people intuitively want to have a nice long relaxed listening session with each thing, letting their perceptions "settle in" and become focused on the unique qualities of each piece. It may be that each of these people has found a way to look closely at the particular things he/she most cares about. And of course, different people are listening *for* different things. No Michael, you've only ever seen one *real* difference between the two camps. Those who complain about quick-switch tests are invariably the same ones who favour sighted listening - however much some of them may try to disguise that fact. *That* is what really does make a difference. The interesting thing is how subjectivists complain about the necessity of making a quick judgment when doing a blind test. Snap judgments don't seem to be a problem at all when they do it sighted! Yes, many is the time when a subjectivist notices a night and day difference immediately. Then all those differences become so hard to discern when simply levels are matched and identities blinded...and the need to *live* with the prodict to tell them apart becomes overwhelming. Norm Strong |
|
#525
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... snip The interesting thing is how subjectivists complain about the necessity of making a quick judgment when doing a blind test. Snap judgments don't seem to be a problem at all when they do it sighted! This cheap shot really doesn't become you Norm. It is wrong, wrong, wrong! I've never heard any basis for that statement here on RAHE or on Usenet for that matter. Any audiophile I know takes as long as he can in evaluating two pieces of gear with the thought of replacing one with the other. The timing is usually dictated by how long the return guarantee or the loan is for. |
|
#526
|
|||
|
|||
|
It would be interesting to learn on what basis listeners here decided to own
the equipment they own and/or recently purchased. No brand names please, but $ spent might be of interest. How many here actually put their money where their mouths are? I seem to recall that during the much publicized Stereophile debate, the participants bought bupkes, (or next to bupkes). |
|
#527
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote: I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true? Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here? If "sound the same" is read broadly enough to mean "has the same perceptual effects," then it's not at all obvious why it *must* be true, because, given that two signals are moment-by-moment indistinguishable, it's not at all obvious why the effect of listening to one for five minutes *must* be the same as the effect of listening to the other for five minutes (including effects on subsequent perception). If the claim read in this way is true, then it rests on facts about human psychology which deserve a full airing; it's not a "must" of logic or a tautology, which (correct me if I'm wrong) *seems* to be what you're saying it is. Mark |
|
#528
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Sep 2005 14:45:49 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: snip Michael's comments, as I am responding to Stewart No Michael, you've only ever seen one *real* difference between the two camps. Those who complain about quick-switch tests are invariably the same ones who favour sighted listening - however much some of them may try to disguise that fact. *That* is what really does make a difference. No, we don't favour sighted listening, except as superior to abx testing and other tests relying on short snippet, quick switch, out of musical context listening. Those happen to be blind and extended blind tests at home are very difficult to do. So we are left with long term sighted tests, with sighted quick-switching thrown in a needed. We also think the "case" against those tests being useful is strongly overstated by the abx advocates on usenet. I have yet to see *any* of the 'objectivists' have any problem with an extended *blind* test - except to note that many decades of experimentation have shown that this is in reality a *less* sensitive method of comparison. This is a canard, Stewart. Many of we subjectivists also support "blind" extended listening...but in fact it is almost impossible to do at home in a realistic way for a variety of practical reasons...inability to get long term loans, the physical aspects of "hiding" the units under test" and need for a third-party proctor. Moreover, the only switchbox I know that is available to do single-person testing is an abx box, which is a matching-identity test that is the furthest removed from ordinary home listening and of little interest to most of us. That is very different from being "opposed to blind tests" in general. Thank you for proving my point so comprehensively. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#529
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. But I think this is the crux of it. Or rather, a point that you want to argue ad nauseum... What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? Status of the claim? What do you have in mind? How do you know that's true? If two things do not sound different in a given test, then they sound the same in that test. I know it is true, because I cannot see any way that it is *NOT* true. Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? It is close to a tautology. As I said, it is almost by definition. It reduces to the fact that if things are not the same, then there *HAVE* to be differences. What does "must" mean here? Means they have to. If "sound the same" is read broadly enough to mean "has the same perceptual effects," then it's not at all obvious why it *must* be true, because, given that two signals are moment-by-moment indistinguishable, it's not at all obvious why the effect of listening to one for five minutes *must* be the same as the effect of listening to the other for five minutes (including effects on subsequent perception). "Sound the same" means there is no difference in the way they sound that is detectible. If the claim read in this way is true, then it rests on facts about human psychology which deserve a full airing; it's not a "must" of logic or a tautology, which (correct me if I'm wrong) *seems* to be what you're saying it is. Excuse me, but you have been engaging others in this torturous discussion for way too long, and I don't think I can help you here, given that so many others have tried, and have proven unsuccessful. But back to the inference that was erroneously drawn, my statement does not imply that if no difference were detected in one test, then the two have to sound the same in *every* test. |
|
#530
|
|||
|
|||
|
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
It would be interesting to learn on what basis listeners here decided to own the equipment they own and/or recently purchased. No brand names please, but $ spent might be of interest. How many here actually put their money where their mouths are? I seem to recall that during the much publicized Stereophile debate, the participants bought bupkes, (or next to bupkes). To the best of my recollection, Mr. Schwartz, this subject wasn't mentioned in the HE2005 debate. I don't know about Mr. Krueger's system, but I have purchased almost all the components that reside long-term in my system. Over the past 10 years, the sum I have spent on audio components (not including recording gear) is $30k. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#531
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Sep 2005 02:04:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:
Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true? Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here? If you are not a legendary creature of Norse origin, the status of the claim is obvious. Things which do not sound different must therefore sound the same. It's not a difficult concept, now is it? If "sound the same" is read broadly enough to mean "has the same perceptual effects," then it's not at all obvious why it *must* be true, because, given that two signals are moment-by-moment indistinguishable, it's not at all obvious why the effect of listening to one for five minutes *must* be the same as the effect of listening to the other for five minutes (including effects on subsequent perception). Simple really - it's because the listener could detect no difference. If the claim read in this way is true, then it rests on facts about human psychology which deserve a full airing; it's not a "must" of logic or a tautology, which (correct me if I'm wrong) *seems* to be what you're saying it is. Of course it's a 'must'. It has nothing to do with whether the test is sihghted, blind, short-term or long-term, it's about whether the listener could hear a difference. Things that are not different, are de facto the same. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#532
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#533
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: If the claim read in this way is true, then it rests on facts about human psychology which deserve a full airing; it's not a "must" of logic or a tautology, which (correct me if I'm wrong) *seems* to be what you're saying it is. Excuse me, but you have been engaging others in this torturous discussion for way too long, and I don't think I can help you here, given that so many others have tried, and have proven unsuccessful. This is one of the differences between the "camps"-- this sort of discussion may be torture for you, but to me it is interesting and very relevant. I'm enjoying Mark's posts. I get the feeling that rahe is for you, a turf you would like to protect from claims of things you disagree with. Since you have no control over what is posted here, and since this discussion is torturous for you, it would seem that you would be more satisfied if you disengaged from it. Mike |
|
#534
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
... It would be interesting to learn on what basis listeners here decided to own the equipment they own and/or recently purchased. No brand names please, but $ spent might be of interest. How many here actually put their money where their mouths are? I seem to recall that during the much publicized Stereophile debate, the participants bought bupkes, (or next to bupkes). Well, I for one, after all the debate here about amplifiers "wire=wire" just replaced my front three channels with monoblocks from Outlaw. Outlaw offers a thirty-day "no quibble" money-back guarantee, and I took advantage of it to test for three weeks before making a final decision. I reconfigured my system first for stereo, so I could test two monos against one of my three Audionics CC-2 stereo amps...switched back and fourth, then changed preamps back and forth behind the power amps. Then reconfigured the system back to five-channel full range, and tested the system again the same way...substituting two amps for the monoblocks, back and fourth, then switching three preamps for three preamps. I clearly determined a) that the monoblocks delivered more low end grunt with my speakers (as they should have with 200-300wpc versus 70-110wpc), b) that they made dynamic response of the system rock solid, and c) that they were more transparent than my previous power amps (which sound very good but are not quite as transparent, being late '70's models) thus allowing the stage depth and soundstaging of one set of preamps to outweigh the other.. Having determined these things, I bought them even though for me in my semi-retirement it represented a sizeable outlay. I have no buyers remorse and enjoy the system immensely, playing orchestral music and big band jazz at somewhat higher levels than before because of the system's newfound dynamic abilities. As well as hearing orchestral reproduction very much as I hear it in the shed at Tanglewood or at Bushnell Auditorium in Hartford. At this point, I think the only upgrade left that I would be interested in would be to substitute a BelCanto Pre6 or ARC's equivalent for the three Onkyo preamps. But it will be several years, if at all, until I can afford that. Meanwhile I am very satisfied and enjoying multichannel immensely. |
|
#535
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 3 Sep 2005 14:45:49 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: snip Michael's comments, as I am responding to Stewart No Michael, you've only ever seen one *real* difference between the two camps. Those who complain about quick-switch tests are invariably the same ones who favour sighted listening - however much some of them may try to disguise that fact. *That* is what really does make a difference. No, we don't favour sighted listening, except as superior to abx testing and other tests relying on short snippet, quick switch, out of musical context listening. Those happen to be blind and extended blind tests at home are very difficult to do. So we are left with long term sighted tests, with sighted quick-switching thrown in a needed. We also think the "case" against those tests being useful is strongly overstated by the abx advocates on usenet. I have yet to see *any* of the 'objectivists' have any problem with an extended *blind* test - except to note that many decades of experimentation have shown that this is in reality a *less* sensitive method of comparison. This is a canard, Stewart. Many of we subjectivists also support "blind" extended listening...but in fact it is almost impossible to do at home in a realistic way for a variety of practical reasons...inability to get long term loans, the physical aspects of "hiding" the units under test" and need for a third-party proctor. Moreover, the only switchbox I know that is available to do single-person testing is an abx box, which is a matching-identity test that is the furthest removed from ordinary home listening and of little interest to most of us. That is very different from being "opposed to blind tests" in general. Thank you for proving my point so comprehensively. Your are very welcome. Others are free to draw their own conclusions. |
|
#536
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#537
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Sep 2005 15:23:02 GMT, Chung wrote:
if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." Surely it is clear that denying the above is logically identical asserting the following: "I cannot distinguish any difference between the sound of these two." "Nevertheless these two sound different to me." Which is to simultaneously believe two contradictory propositions. Ed Seedhouse, Victoria, B.C. |
|
#538
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#539
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 02:04:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true? Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here? If you are not a legendary creature of Norse origin, the status of the claim is obvious. Things which do not sound different must therefore sound the same. It's not a difficult concept, now is it? Actually it is very simple. He wrote "a difference is not detected by the listener." You changed that to "things which do not sound different." Whether these are equivalent is something that needs to be examined. -- Michael Mossey. | "Cd players & amps have different, audible musical qualities." |
|
#540
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Chung
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: Jenn wrote: Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. Actually to be more fully correct, if a difference is not detected by the listener under the given test conditions, then they must sound the same under those conditions. Actually, the qualification you added does not make my statement any "more truly correct". What you were trying to say is that there might be some test conditions where the listener could detect differences. If that is the case, then the listener simply can detect differences under those test conditions, and of course the two will therefore not sound the same to that listener under those test conditions. Rather obvious, is it not? Obvious, yes, but left out of your paragraph. Your paragraph would seem to indicate that if a listener hears no differences under a specific set of conditions, then the listener will hear no differences under any conditions. This, of course, is not a given. I would then suggest that you are not reading carefully and are drawing erroneous inferences. Untrue. Your statement suggests that if a listener doesn't hear a difference in a test, that for that listener, there is no difference. That thought doesn't at all take into account, for example, test validity or testing conditions. Well, Jenn, try to read carefully now. snip Uncalled for sarcasm noted, and unappreciated. What you should have noted instead is the exasperation expressed in that sentence. You should have read what I wrote that didn't get approved for posting! Thanks but no thanks. What's the point? Exasperation that a simple sentence can be so misread due to a perception bias, despite my subsequent attempts to explain. I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. Well, Chung, "try to read carefully now." I'm not disagreeing with your statement: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." I'm simply saying that it is more clear, and it contributes more information to the debate to add a reminder that under different conditions the listener might well detect differences. That's all. |
|
#541
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? ... Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? It is close to a tautology. As I said, it is almost by definition. It reduces to the fact that if things are not the same, then there *HAVE* to be differences. ... If "sound the same" is read broadly enough to mean "has the same perceptual effects," then it's not at all obvious why it *must* be true, because, given that two signals are moment-by-moment indistinguishable, it's not at all obvious why the effect of listening to one for five minutes *must* be the same as the effect of listening to the other for five minutes (including effects on subsequent perception). "Sound the same" means there is no difference in the way they sound that is detectible. If by detectable you mean "actually detected," then that is a tautology, or close to it. But if by a detectable difference you mean the existence of a difference between what the listener perceives in A, on that occasion, and what she perceives in B, on that occasion, that *could be* detected in some way or other, then it just doesn't follow. Please see my post of Aug. 24, 8:09 pm, for fuller explanation. Mark |
|
#542
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 02:04:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true? Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here? If you are not a legendary creature of Norse origin, the status of the claim is obvious. Things which do not sound different must therefore sound the same. It's not a difficult concept, now is it? I hadn't thought so, but for a counterexample to your claim please see my post of Aug. 24, 8:09 pm. If "sound the same" is read broadly enough to mean "has the same perceptual effects," then it's not at all obvious why it *must* be true, because, given that two signals are moment-by-moment indistinguishable, it's not at all obvious why the effect of listening to one for five minutes *must* be the same as the effect of listening to the other for five minutes (including effects on subsequent perception). Simple really - it's because the listener could detect no difference. Begs the question, which is what is the basis of the inference from (1) the listener not detecting a difference in quick switching to (2) the perceptual effects of 5-minute stretches being the same. Mark |
|
#543
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 5 Sep 2005 15:23:02 GMT, Chung wrote: if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." Surely it is clear that denying the above is logically identical asserting the following: "I cannot distinguish any difference between the sound of these two." "Nevertheless these two sound different to me." Which is to simultaneously believe two contradictory propositions. It may look that way, but there is an ambiguity in "sound different" that leads to confusion (about what the "objectivist" argument rests on). If the sources "sound different" in the sense that it seems to me that they are different, that's one thing. But sources can sound different in the sense that *how A sounds* may be different from *how B sounds*, and *that* doesn't contradict the proposition that I am unable to detect a difference. In cases of time-distal comparison, one sometimes cannot reliably detect a difference, though different things are perceived. And if I can detect no difference in quick-switch testing, there is surely no contradiction with the proposition that the perceptual effect of 5 minutes of A is not the same as the perceptual effect of 5 minutes of B; they are different experiential contexts. Mark |
|
#544
|
|||
|
|||
|
[Moderator's note: OK you two, this subthread is dead. -- deb ]
Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: Jenn wrote: Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. Actually to be more fully correct, if a difference is not detected by the listener under the given test conditions, then they must sound the same under those conditions. Actually, the qualification you added does not make my statement any "more truly correct". What you were trying to say is that there might be some test conditions where the listener could detect differences. If that is the case, then the listener simply can detect differences under those test conditions, and of course the two will therefore not sound the same to that listener under those test conditions. Rather obvious, is it not? Obvious, yes, but left out of your paragraph. Your paragraph would seem to indicate that if a listener hears no differences under a specific set of conditions, then the listener will hear no differences under any conditions. This, of course, is not a given. I would then suggest that you are not reading carefully and are drawing erroneous inferences. Untrue. Your statement suggests that if a listener doesn't hear a difference in a test, that for that listener, there is no difference. That thought doesn't at all take into account, for example, test validity or testing conditions. Well, Jenn, try to read carefully now. snip Uncalled for sarcasm noted, and unappreciated. What you should have noted instead is the exasperation expressed in that sentence. You should have read what I wrote that didn't get approved for posting! Thanks but no thanks. What's the point? Exasperation that a simple sentence can be so misread due to a perception bias, despite my subsequent attempts to explain. I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. Well, Chung, "try to read carefully now." I'm not disagreeing with your statement: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." I'm simply saying that it is more clear, and it contributes more information to the debate to add a reminder that under different conditions the listener might well detect differences. That's all. Well, Jenn, try to read what you said on August 27: "Your paragraph would seem to indicate that if a listener hears no differences under a specific set of conditions, then the listener will hear no differences under any conditions." You were clearly drawing the wrong conclusions, and you were disagreeing with me when I said so. |
|
#545
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: Chung wrote: Excuse me, but you have been engaging others in this torturous discussion for way too long, and I don't think I can help you here, given that so many others have tried, and have proven unsuccessful. This is one of the differences between the "camps"-- this sort of discussion may be torture for you, but to me it is interesting and very relevant. I'm enjoying Mark's posts. I get the feeling that rahe is for you, a turf you would like to protect from claims of things you disagree with. Since you have no control over what is posted here, and since this discussion is torturous for you, it would seem that you would be more satisfied if you disengaged from it. At last, a subjectivist admits that it is they, and not the objectivists, who are beating this dead horse. I can only speak for myself, but I would be thrilled if this whole debate would go away. At last, an objectivist admits that it is they, and not the subjectivists, who can't actually back up their view. (It has at least as much truth as your parallel claim.) I suspect that this "dead horse" has been around for at least as long as posters on rahe have been concerned to debunk "audio myths." Let the subjectivists have their "this is what it sounds like to me" threads, and let the objectivists have their "see the latest intellectual dishonesty from S-phile" threads, and just leave each other alone. Sadly, it's the subjectivists who can't seem to manage that. They've got to invent pseudoscientific conjectures (DeBellis) There's nothing pseudoscientific about pointing out what certain tests do or don't test for, or asking how we know certain things on the basis of the tests. and equally pseudoscientific "models" (Mossey) to resolve the cognitive dissonance of believing scientific fallacies about a field that wouldn't exist except for science. A dubious conjecture about the motivation for the inquiry. Mark |
|
#546
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Oh right, so you can only hear differences when you're not being tested? How frighfully convenient................ It's 'DBT Anxiety'. Closely related to 'expectation bias'. Nope. Totally unrelated. Also a pathetic excuse. You wrote an entire paragraph describing the differences between two cables, and insisted that these numerous and clear differences occur every single time you listen to the cables in question--and yet you cannot distinguish these two cables when you don't know which one is in circuit? I have not tried blind testing and have no interest in doing so, despite your vigorous protestations. It would serve no purpose. Does your posting about blind testing here serve a purpose? |
|
#547
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: I agree with you that a difference in personal experience underlies the perspective of the two "camps"---or at least, I see such a difference in the posts I read here. For example, if you ask somebody to compare two pieces of equipment, and they sound quite similar (that is, they aren't grossly different), then I've noticed a couple different responses. Some people want to set up a quick-switching test. This is like getting closer and looking at finer and finer detail. Other people intuitively want to have a nice long relaxed listening session with each thing, letting their perceptions "settle in" and become focused on the unique qualities of each piece. It may be that each of these people has found a way to look closely at the particular things he/she most cares about. And of course, different people are listening *for* different things. No Michael, you've only ever seen one *real* difference between the two camps. Those who complain about quick-switch tests are invariably the same ones who favour sighted listening - however much some of them may try to disguise that fact. *That* is what really does make a difference. The interesting thing is how subjectivists complain about the necessity of making a quick judgment when doing a blind test. Snap judgments don't seem to be a problem at all when they do it sighted! Yes, many is the time when a subjectivist notices a night and day difference immediately. I think it's important to note that, many's the time an *objectivist* does too. The key distinction is that they don't necessarily conclude that it must be due to a real audible difference between the gear. -- -S "God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under' |
|
#548
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
wrote: Chung wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: If the claim read in this way is true, then it rests on facts about human psychology which deserve a full airing; it's not a "must" of logic or a tautology, which (correct me if I'm wrong) *seems* to be what you're saying it is. Excuse me, but you have been engaging others in this torturous discussion for way too long, and I don't think I can help you here, given that so many others have tried, and have proven unsuccessful. This is one of the differences between the "camps"-- this sort of discussion may be torture for you, but to me it is interesting and very relevant. I'm enjoying Mark's posts. I get the feeling that rahe is for you, a turf you would like to protect from claims of things you disagree with. I don't share your feeling at all. I like a lively debate of opposing ideas as much as anyone else, but in this case, we are going over the same points, since, oh, the middle of June, or so. And Mark still wants to "debate" what it means when two things sound the same, or if there are no differences between them. It takes someone with a lot more scientific curiosity than I have to find this particular point worth further elaboration after almost three months. I feel that my understanding of the issues has gained over the course of the discussion, thanks in many ways to others' suggestions and objections, so, at least for me, it has not been a waste of time at all. Mark |
|
#549
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote: On 5 Sep 2005 15:23:02 GMT, Chung wrote: if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." Surely it is clear that denying the above is logically identical asserting the following: "I cannot distinguish any difference between the sound of these two." "Nevertheless these two sound different to me." Which is to simultaneously believe two contradictory propositions. It may look that way, but there is an ambiguity in "sound different" that leads to confusion (about what the "objectivist" argument rests on). If the sources "sound different" in the sense that it seems to me that they are different, that's one thing. But sources can sound different in the sense that *how A sounds* may be different from *how B sounds*, and *that* doesn't contradict the proposition that I am unable to detect a difference. In cases of time-distal comparison, one sometimes cannot reliably detect a difference, though different things are perceived. And if I can detect no difference in quick-switch testing, there is surely no contradiction with the proposition that the perceptual effect of 5 minutes of A is not the same as the perceptual effect of 5 minutes of B; they are different experiential contexts. Mark Hi Mark, I tend to agree with your last statement. I'm not sure how to phrase this to match what you saying, but I understand that you are saying there may be difficulties in knowing what one is hearing over an extended time, or remembering this. What do think about the possibility that people can come to know their feelings about a piece of equipment through living with it? For example, I just borrowed a cd player from a local dealer and listened to it for a couple of days. At the end of that time, I wasn't sure I could put a word on how it sounded, but I do know that I wasn't enjoying it. To develop this line of thought: I've noticed that there are two situations where I feel clear about my reaction to a piece of equipment. One is when I live with it for a while. Another is when I've gotten used to device A (amp, cd player, etc.) and then replace it with device B. I've noticed my very first reaction often figures prominently in my overall impression of the device later. Practical blind testing requires generally opposing conditions to these: you have to get through a number of trials, so unless you want to spend the better part of a year doing the test, you can't live with the equipment. And you can't just switch once between devices A & B: doing a significant number of trials requires switching many times. There's only one opportunity at the beginning to have that initial reaction. I find it fascinating that Zen Buddhism has some relevant obvservations. Zen speaks of "beginner's mind," that special quality of openness and lack of prejudice that one has naturally when approaching an experience for the first time. Zen meditators spend their lives attempting to cultivate that quality of openness. Zen also speaks of "conceptualizing" experiences---taking a rich experience that involves deep intution and right-brain processing, and attempting to turn it into an intellectually graspable "left-brain" idea. Yesterday I was waiting for a light to change. Sometimes when I do this, I look at the light in the cross direction, waiting for it to turn yellow and then red, to give myself some warning about when my light will turn green. In this case, I was at too much of an angle to see the cross-direction light. I thought I might look for the glow of light visible in the cylindrical shades, waiting to see a yellow glow. However, the sun was setting and shining directly into the cylinders, so nothing could be made out for certain. Then in the space of a few seconds, something interesting happened. I suddenly felt that I had seen a yellow glow. Right away my "left brain" said, "let's check that, let's find the clear sign of a yellow glow." And when this thought arose, I could no longer access this sense of the yellow glow. I forgot what it looked like, and I had no idea how I had noticed it. Just then my light turned green. So I had seen the cross-light turn yellow, it appears. But it was obvious that I wanted to conceptualize this experience--I wanted to know *how* I had seen it, and I wanted some very concrete data to check my experience, confirm it, and put it on a solid analytical footing. It was obvious that this desire interfered with the deeper and more spontaneous function that saw the yellow glow. And this deeper function was an expression of beginner's mind. I had never before tried to look for a yellow glow under these conditions. I find it a compelling theory that the scientific study of aesthetics conceptualizes it--in fact, *must* conceptualize it, in order to make any objective claims--and in that way cannot study these more intuitive functions. A person who experiences *all* aesthetics through this conceptual filter would naturally find the standard rahe objectivist model appealing, because it would directly describe his experience. Mike |
|
#550
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: Buster Mudd wrote: And by "the kind of information that has to do with the longer-term kind of memory" are you (once again) talking about Musical Content? Because if so, that's *NOT* the "kind of information" that would allow one to discern a perceptual equivalence between an SACD player and a CD player...or between an SACD recording and a CD recording, for that matter. p.s. If a certain musical content can be heard through one piece of gear but not another, surely that *is* a difference that is relevant to audio, no? (What I have in mind here is, say, how clearly an inner voice can be heard, and I think LP and CD do sometimes differ in that respect.) If an inner voice can be heard clearly via one source and is obscured or masked via another, that sort of difference would be audible fairly immediately, without resorting to "longer-term kind of memory". Yes, I agree, but one thing at a time. It *is* a kind of information that can be relevant to a difference between SACD and CD, which runs counter to what you said above. And I don't see what ensures that *all* information that depends on longer-term memory will be discernible immediately; the fact that information about musical content depends on longer-term memory doesn't imply that everything that depends on longer-term memory is about musical content. But you're just citing the inner voice obfuscation as an *example* of an (hypothetical) audible difference between SACD & CD. The sonic difference, if one exists, would not be restricted to just that one particular musical passage, or even just to inner voices in general; this is just a convenient way for you to identify & cite this difference. But if that difference did exist, a little bit of investigation & analysis of the spectral & temporal content of those recordings & passages would allow us to qualify those differences in ways that then would not rely on musical content to become perceptible. |
|
#551
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message ... It would be interesting to learn on what basis listeners here decided to own the equipment they own and/or recently purchased. No brand names please, but $ spent might be of interest. How many here actually put their money where their mouths are? I seem to recall that during the much publicized Stereophile debate, the participants bought bupkes, (or next to bupke I stopped figure it out recently, and it wasn't too bad. My total outlay, exclusive of software, was $1080. Most of this is used equipment, but it includes 2 MD players, 2 cassette decks, and 2 CD cabinets (which turn out to be the single most expensive items in the system :-) Norm Strong Why so cheap? It's because of an agreement I made with my wife and kids, many years ago, in which my hobby would not cost more than theirs. Norm Strong |
|
#552
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true? Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here? If "sound the same" is read broadly enough to mean "has the same perceptual effects," then it's not at all obvious why it *must* be true, because, given that two signals are moment-by-moment indistinguishable, it's not at all obvious why the effect of listening to one for five minutes *must* be the same as the effect of listening to the other for five minutes (including effects on subsequent perception). Of course, it is really a stretch to say that a blind test, of the sort which requires a person to switch between two sources many times, can even establish, or even come close to establishing whether two sources are moment-by-moment identical. The differences I care about are right-brain and at a more subtle level than the conceptual level. One must work on a conceptual level to perform the same operation over and over. To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a component. -- Michael "Differences which measure (key word: *measure*) down 100 dB ARE audible" |
|
#553
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 5 Sep 2005 21:16:25 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Sep 2005 02:04:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true? Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here? If you are not a legendary creature of Norse origin, the status of the claim is obvious. Things which do not sound different must therefore sound the same. It's not a difficult concept, now is it? I hadn't thought so, but for a counterexample to your claim please see my post of Aug. 24, 8:09 pm. No. If you have something to say, then *quote* it. However, you appear to have expended several thousand lines saying nothing up to this point, so perhaps this is a lost cause. If "sound the same" is read broadly enough to mean "has the same perceptual effects," then it's not at all obvious why it *must* be true, because, given that two signals are moment-by-moment indistinguishable, it's not at all obvious why the effect of listening to one for five minutes *must* be the same as the effect of listening to the other for five minutes (including effects on subsequent perception). Simple really - it's because the listener could detect no difference. Begs the question, which is what is the basis of the inference from (1) the listener not detecting a difference in quick switching to (2) the perceptual effects of 5-minute stretches being the same. Irrelevant. No one is suggesting that the threshold of audibility is the same in each case. What is being said is that if a difference is not heard *in either case*, then *by definition* there is no audible difference, regardless of the test conditions. That's certainly not to say that a quick-switch test might not reveal differences too subtle for a long-term test. Indeed, that is *exactly* why quick-switch tests are preferred by the audio industry - they are *proven* to be more sensitive, despite all the hand-waving about 'the gestalt of the performance' that we hear from the subjectivists. BTW, this 'gestalt' always seems to end up as a *sighted* comparison..... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#554
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#556
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. But I think this is the crux of it. What is the status of the claim: "If a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener"? How do you know that's true? Is it an empirical claim? A tautology? What does "must" mean here? If "sound the same" is read broadly enough to mean "has the same perceptual effects," then it's not at all obvious why it *must* be true, because, given that two signals are moment-by-moment indistinguishable, it's not at all obvious why the effect of listening to one for five minutes *must* be the same as the effect of listening to the other for five minutes (including effects on subsequent perception). Of course, it is really a stretch to say that a blind test, of the sort which requires a person to switch between two sources many times, can even establish, or even come close to establishing whether two sources are moment-by-moment identical. The differences I care about are right-brain and at a more subtle level than the conceptual level. One must work on a conceptual level to perform the same operation over and over. To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a component. And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as to strongly rule out other explanations? Let's turn it around the other way....what work have you "objectivists" done to be sure that quick-switch, short-snippet, comparative testing such as ABX actually can capture the "right brain" experience and thus measure some of the things that uniquely set musical listening and enjoyment apart from the sound of white noise, codec artifacts, or telephone voice transmission. |
|
#557
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a component. And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as to strongly rule out other explanations? Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the need itself, can lead one astray. Every listening test I've ever read about, that attempted to establish something on an objective level, seemed to be designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences operate. Mike |
|
#558
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a component. And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as to strongly rule out other explanations? Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the need itself, can lead one astray. Every listening test I've ever read about, that attempted to establish something on an objective level, seemed to be designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences operate. Mike This reminds me of a post I made on March 24, 2004: *** Objectivist: Saying that the elephant can fly is an extraordinary claim. Prove it. Subjectivist: Proof? This is only an hobby. There is a problem with objectively proving, because every time you really sit down, bring in your cameras and recorders, and carefully observe an elephant, you can't see it flying. The process of trying to catch it flying and that of observing elephants in nature are two really different tasks. No one has ever proven that anything could not fly this way. *** http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...c?dmode=source |
|
#559
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a component. And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as to strongly rule out other explanations? Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the need itself, can lead one astray. Then again, it can lead to things like...the computer you typed your reply on. You know, the products of science and technology 'n stuff like that. Every listening test I've ever read about, that attempted to establish something on an objective level, seemed to be designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences operate. You seem to think you *know* how 'subtle subjective experiences' operate... with your only 'proof' for these explanations being, your own experience. What if your explanations are wrong? -- -S |
|
#560
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 6 Sep 2005 23:25:10 GMT, wrote:
I stopped figure it out recently, and it wasn't too bad. My total outlay, exclusive of software, was $1080. Most of this is used equipment, but it includes 2 MD players, 2 cassette decks, and 2 CD cabinets (which turn out to be the single most expensive items in the system :-) Norm Strong Why so cheap? It's because of an agreement I made with my wife and kids, many years ago, in which my hobby would not cost more than theirs. Same here ... at least until recently. That folks are mad for multichannel means there's a lot of good stereo equipment out there at reasonable prices. Now I've gone a trifle overboard, new speakers, high-end headphones & headphone amps ... maybe buying used is the equivalent of skin popping? Andy Katz |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
| Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
