Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 16, 7:47*pm, wrote:
When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual. That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer questions. " With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. *Opinion expressed- as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force. When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs. When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an asserted objective reality. *We then want to know if that reported perception is in the wire or in his head as a function of the ear/brain process. Now we have science which allows us to move beyond the "I hear it, I really do, don't you believe me?" state of affairs. *If that wire has some physical factor then we want to know it independent of the individual reporting his perception.. *Don't you want to know that too and isn't part of this hobby knowing what is really happening so assertions can be put aside and we can enjoy the experience knowing $3000 wire adds nothing to the experience? This group does not exclude those whose enjoyment is in knowing such things and discussiong of how they can be achieved. *The group does not exclude educating ourselves about how to wade in and survive the marketing depts. and fellow traveler hifi mags. in the sale of questionable expectations and offering to reduce the "audio nervosa" they have produced by following their advice and buyiing their products. Do we want to "discuss" endlessly the virtues of that $3000 wire against a mere $1500 wire and what double the price buys in listening experience? The obvious first question would seem to be "is wire wire?" which makes the above discussion premature and moot if it is. As the above objective areas are not excluded, I have no problem having that $3000 vs. *$1500 wire discussion but understanding that questiones might reasonably be posed as to the psych/physical principles involved. * That goes both ways. With respect... There is a Latin phrase that accounts for much of all of this: De gustibus non es disputandum. In the matter of taste, there is no disputing - typically loosely translated as "there is no accounting for taste". If there are those who wish to discuss the merits of $3000 interconnects, other than an overwhelming sense of wonderous pity, I am perfectly happy letting them have their say, with or without measurable proof or reference to same. At those prices, there is not a power on earth that will convince them that their beliefs are not fully realized. Similarly with many of the other accessories of similar cost and intent. Given this state of affairs, I would prefer to discuss events, items or equipment at a more accessible level and free of the trappings of revealed religion. Again, there are a couple of truisms that need to be kept in mind: a) All equipment from that glass-in-a-blender Original Design/Issue Stereo 120 to that $20,000 high-end "Pure class A" amp will test reasonably well with instruments. Look at the specifications of that 120 back in 1964/5 - whenever it was. b) Much very expensive equipment, with specific reference to some VERY fancy boutique tube equipment will not test (with instruments) as well as that glass-in-a-blender Dynaco 120. So, it is reasonable to conclude that *PURE* instrument testing does not reveal everything. It is also quite reasonable to conclude based on even the most primitive comparison-testing that the 120 was/is a pretty wretched sounding amp before Dynaco got around to correcting some of its basic flaws. No great shakes afterwards, but for its price and niche, not half-bad either. So, both sighted and unsighted comparison testing does not reveal everything. NO single methodology reveals everything - despite entire sects and cults built around that belief. Those that carry such beliefs as part of their religion are incapable of any discussion, reasonable, scientific or otherwise. They are only capable of accepting full agreement or disputing ad-nauseum those who do not accept their premise whole cloth. Those sorts of individuals will not change, nor are they capable of understanding their condition. Discussions are futile. Getting back to the $3000/foot cabling - those who are 'in the market' for such stuff are blessed with invincible ignorance together with the belief that they can actually discern these things. Asking them for proof or support for such beliefs will cause them to rear up on their hind-legs in greatly offended, injured innocence. Do you really think that a "reasoned discussion" based on "Scientific principles" will make one whit of difference? Just be glad it is not you and move on. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 17, 1:53*pm, wrote:
This started when one poster said we are at an impasse with all opinions on an equal footing. *I hastened to mention that we can move beyond individual opinion, everyone has one, and use science to resolve the assertions of the subjective folk. * Opinions are on an equal footing, sadly. As in the case of what you describe as an impasse no side (and there are several around this issue) is inclined to lend credibility to any other that might conflict with their closely held beliefs (AKA Revealed Religion). So bringing "science" into the - for lack of a better term - discussion serves to convince no one. The assertions of the "subjective folk" will never be resolved by science much as those who believe in the literal iterpretation of certain vintage texts have no use for the theory of evolution. So, science is futile, ridicule serves neither side although it may make its purveyor feel better, invective will be "moderated" - we are left with whatever level of reason might be maintained under those conditions. The green magic marker crowd is invincible in its belief. Simple as that. And the ABX crowd admits to no substitutes. Equally simply. Mayonnaise is a mixture of oils and waters - an emulsion, not a solution. Keep that in mind during these -discussions-... . Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:23*pm, wrote: ...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show the factor ... No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here and "be heard." When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual. * That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer questions. With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. Not quite. From the rah-e guidelines 3.0 -- Topics Appropriate for rec.audio.high-end Within the realm of high-end audio, as defined previously, any topic is permitted. Theories, opinions, and questions are all appropriate if they are concerned with the reproduction of music. Please realize that the objective of this newsgroup is the substantive discussion and exchange of information related to high-end audio. Posts that do not further this objective, even if peripherally related to an appropriate topic, may not be approved. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:10:11 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jul 16, 8:05*pm, Sonnova wrote: Since this "debate" is irreconcilable, it comes down PRECISELY to religion and for the same reason. It is a belief in things that cannot be quantified or verified by any known methodology in any way which would satisfy both sides of the question, so each side has to base their particular belief on the assumption that they are right. This is simply wrong. All of these things can be quantified, and what happens in Audioland is a pseudo-debate between people who are willing to quantify them and people who are not. I'm afraid that you are the one who is wrong here - probably because you didn't read what was said. I said "It is a belief in things that cannot be quantified or verified by any known methodology in any way which would satisfy both sides of the question..." The operative idea here is that it cannot be quantified in a way which would satisfy both camps" There is no methodology that would satisfy both geologists and flat-earthers, but that doesn't mean their "disagreement" is a religious one. For the flat earther, it would have to be religious. How else could they maintain a belief in something that is so easily demonstrated as to be false? Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in the same way. I suggest you study some of the research on the subject before you venture here. Peoples' brains do indeed react to sound in the same way; it's their interpretation of those sounds that differs--and that's a multi-stage process. In a sense, one of the things that objective listening tests does is to help determine whether it is the sound itself, or the interpretation of the sound, that differs. You're picking nits, here. The interpretation of sound is part of the hearing process. The ear, after all, is merely a mechanism, a transducer in fact. The thing behind the ear, the brain, interprets the signals it hears as sound and we don't know to what extent those interpretations are similar from one person to another - even if we could be sure that the mechanics of the ear operate the same in all perfectly functioning ears, and we can't even tell that except for simple frequency domain sensitivity tests. IOW, at the moment, there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in this because we don't know enough about the variables in the human perception of music. "Perception of music" is part of the interpretation stage, not the hearing stage. (There is no such physical reality as music; a sound is musical only because you interpret it as such.) And the science is way ahead of you on this stuff. Again, you're picking nits and playing with semantics. We have no quarrel here. bob |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:51:40 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): There are a number of problems here. First and most importantly, we *can* measure "what people hear." It's just air compression, after all. No we can't. You just said it yourself. We can measure the air compression (and subsequent rarefaction), yes, but what we can't measure is how the human brain interprets those mechanical changes in air pressure. Actually we can and do it all the time. It's part of how we live. We sense, we think and we express ourselves. When we sense we measure our environment and turn it into thoughts and memories. When we express ourselves we make those thoughts and memories available to people and recording facilities outside ourselves. We might pick-up those variations in air pressure with our ears, but we "hear" them with our brains, and that, we cannot measure. We surely can measure the variations in air pressure that we hear with our ears, and in multiple dimensions. We have all kinds of standarized tests for doing that. Hearing tests, tests of articulation, tests of knowlege that we sense by means of hearing. Also, I'd like for you to show me a measuring device that can pick-up those variations of air pressure that we call sound and then interpret them in such a way as to tell us something about what they mean. It's called the human brain. IOW, can we measure the sound in a listening room in such a way as to tell whether or not, say, speaker cables make any difference in the way the speakers themselves perform? Sure we can - and simple listening tests like the ABX test let us do that. Furthermore we know quite a bit about how to correlate electrical measures of cable performance with the results of listening tests. Just because we can't yet effectively hook cables directly up to people's brains directly to do listening tests doesn't mean that we can't measure and understand these things. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 17, 7:53*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in the same way. I suggest you study some of the research on the subject before you venture here. Peoples' brains do indeed react to sound in the same way; it's their interpretation of those sounds that differs--and that's a multi-stage process. In a sense, one of the things that objective listening tests does is to help determine whether it is the sound itself, or the interpretation of the sound, that differs. You're picking nits, here. The interpretation of sound is part of the hearing process. I'm not picking nits, here. I'm referring to scientific investigation that you are apparently unfamiliar with. Hearing and interpretation are two separate, sequential mental activities, taking place in separate areas of the brain. And it's quite possible for people to have identical brain reactions to the hearing part of the process, but very different reactions in the interpretation stage. The very musical and the tone-deaf *hear* music the same way, for example. bob |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
Again, there are a couple of truisms that need to be kept in mind: a) All equipment from that glass-in-a-blender Original Design/Issue Stereo 120 to that $20,000 high-end "Pure class A" amp will test reasonably well with instruments. Actually, the Dyna 120 is likely to test better than the $20,000 "pure Class A" amp. b) Much very expensive equipment, with specific reference to some VERY fancy boutique tube equipment will not test (with instruments) as well as that glass-in-a-blender Dynaco 120. That, too. So, it is reasonable to conclude that *PURE* instrument testing does not reveal everything. That's not the least bit reasonable. There's way too much missing, for example the evidence that something sounds better than something else. It is also quite reasonable to conclude based on even the most primitive comparison-testing that the 120 was/is a pretty wretched sounding amp before Dynaco got around to correcting some of its basic flaws. No great shakes afterwards, but for its price and niche, not half-bad either. The worst thing about the Dyna 120 was that it tended to destroy itself if it got abused. Not that it sounded bad before it blew, but it surely sounded bad (or sounded not at all) when it was damaged. One of the things that the 120 tended to do is blow half of its output stage. Since it had an output coupling cap, that wouldn't put the supply voltage across the speakers and blow a fuse or a speaker. Instead, the output of the amp strongly tended towards even order distortion. There is some probability that a lot of the anecdotes about the Dyna 120 sounding bad related to amps that had been blown. So, both sighted and unsighted comparison testing does not reveal everything. If the former comment was not the least bit reasonable, this one is very hard to describe, because it is even less reasonable. No foundation has been laid for this conclusion, none at all. NO single methodology reveals everything - despite entire sects and cults built around that belief. I don't know if the believers in sighted evaluation believe that their methodology reveals everything, but the believers in blind testing surely don't believe that at all. At this point the number of exceedingly flawed premises precludes further comment. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:15:06 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): On Jul 16, 7:47*pm, wrote: When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual. That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer questions. " With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. *Opinion expressed- as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force. When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs. When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an asserted objective reality. *We then want to know if that reported perception is in the wire or in his head as a function of the ear/brain process. Now we have science which allows us to move beyond the "I hear it, I really do, don't you believe me?" state of affairs. *If that wire has some physical factor then we want to know it independent of the individual reporting his perception.. *Don't you want to know that too and isn't part of this hobby knowing what is really happening so assertions can be put aside and we can enjoy the experience knowing $3000 wire adds nothing to the experience? This group does not exclude those whose enjoyment is in knowing such things and discussiong of how they can be achieved. *The group does not exclude educating ourselves about how to wade in and survive the marketing depts. and fellow traveler hifi mags. in the sale of questionable expectations and offering to reduce the "audio nervosa" they have produced by following their advice and buyiing their products. Do we want to "discuss" endlessly the virtues of that $3000 wire against a mere $1500 wire and what double the price buys in listening experience? The obvious first question would seem to be "is wire wire?" which makes the above discussion premature and moot if it is. As the above objective areas are not excluded, I have no problem having that $3000 vs. *$1500 wire discussion but understanding that questiones might reasonably be posed as to the psych/physical principles involved. * That goes both ways. With respect... There is a Latin phrase that accounts for much of all of this: De gustibus non es disputandum. In the matter of taste, there is no disputing - typically loosely translated as "there is no accounting for taste". If there are those who wish to discuss the merits of $3000 interconnects, other than an overwhelming sense of wonderous pity, I am perfectly happy letting them have their say, with or without measurable proof or reference to same. At those prices, there is not a power on earth that will convince them that their beliefs are not fully realized. Similarly with many of the other accessories of similar cost and intent. Given this state of affairs, I would prefer to discuss events, items or equipment at a more accessible level and free of the trappings of revealed religion. Again, there are a couple of truisms that need to be kept in mind: a) All equipment from that glass-in-a-blender Original Design/Issue Stereo 120 to that $20,000 high-end "Pure class A" amp will test reasonably well with instruments. Look at the specifications of that 120 back in 1964/5 - whenever it was. b) Much very expensive equipment, with specific reference to some VERY fancy boutique tube equipment will not test (with instruments) as well as that glass-in-a-blender Dynaco 120. Well, early ST-120's suffer from a crossover notch that is both easily seen (on an o'scope) and more importantly, easily heard. In the early 1970's, they changed it. Replaced a lot of marginal-for-the-task-at-hand transistors (like the 2N3055 output transistors) for more robust transistors, changed the output bias, replaced a bunch of resistors and capacitors, and the later ones are actually, very decent amps. But unless you have an early one that has brought-up to later specs, it's pretty dismal and pretty unreliable at that. (I believe a list of parts to upgrade the 120 are available on the web. I just don't recall where. So, it is reasonable to conclude that *PURE* instrument testing does not reveal everything. It is also quite reasonable to conclude based on even the most primitive comparison-testing that the 120 was/is a pretty wretched sounding amp before Dynaco got around to correcting some of its basic flaws. No great shakes afterwards, but for its price and niche, not half-bad either. Agreed So, both sighted and unsighted comparison testing does not reveal everything. NO single methodology reveals everything - despite entire sects and cults built around that belief. Those that carry such beliefs as part of their religion are incapable of any discussion, reasonable, scientific or otherwise. They are only capable of accepting full agreement or disputing ad-nauseum those who do not accept their premise whole cloth. Those sorts of individuals will not change, nor are they capable of understanding their condition. Discussions are futile. Getting back to the $3000/foot cabling - those who are 'in the market' for such stuff are blessed with invincible ignorance together with the belief that they can actually discern these things. Asking them for proof or support for such beliefs will cause them to rear up on their hind-legs in greatly offended, injured innocence. Do you really think that a "reasoned discussion" based on "Scientific principles" will make one whit of difference? Just be glad it is not you and move on. Uh-huh. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 18, 9:52*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Just because we can't yet effectively hook cables directly up to people's brains directly to do listening tests doesn't mean that we can't measure and understand these things. Measure, certainly. Understand the physical and "common" psycho- acoustical aspects in some considerable detail, certainly. But measure and understand preference, taste, expectation or peculiarities of perception - not at all. And if you need an excellent example, I cannot abide puddings of any nature, sweet potatoes or yams even as miniscule 'included ingredients' and I react violently (quite specifically) to any food or beverage that contains coffee - mocha chocolate, coffee ice-cream, flies in my Sambuca, even decaf - but I have no untoward reaction to tea, other caffeinated beverages, colas and so forth. Hearing is much like that - a mixture of hard-wiring, common physical characteristics, taste, experience, preference and so forth. Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:05:50 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jul 17, 7:53*pm, Sonnova wrote: Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in the same way. I suggest you study some of the research on the subject before you venture here. Peoples' brains do indeed react to sound in the same way; it's their interpretation of those sounds that differs--and that's a multi-stage process. In a sense, one of the things that objective listening tests does is to help determine whether it is the sound itself, or the interpretation of the sound, that differs. You're picking nits, here. The interpretation of sound is part of the hearing process. I'm not picking nits, here. I'm referring to scientific investigation that you are apparently unfamiliar with. Hearing and interpretation are two separate, sequential mental activities, taking place in separate areas of the brain. And it's quite possible for people to have identical brain reactions to the hearing part of the process, but very different reactions in the interpretation stage. The very musical and the tone-deaf *hear* music the same way, for example. bob While they might, indeed be two separate, sequential activities when viewed from a purely scientific point of view, the end result is that interpretation is perceived as being part of the "hearing" process. It is, after all the portion of the hearing activity that is as responsible for so-called "golden-ears" as it is for "tin-ears". Sure, we know that it's not the ears that are golden or tin, but rather the extent to which the listener is capable of discerning what they hear. In the case of "golden-eared audiophiles", for instance, the ability to hear anomalies in recorded music is a learned response, and that person's hearing is not really any better than anyone else's. They've just trained themselves to listen for details in the presentation that others might miss. Yet, it is commonly said that this is part of the hearing process as it's an unconscious process and people don't disassociate the different parts of that process in that manner. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a
broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an asserted objective reality. Okay, let's talk about "objective reality." Let's start with your reference to $3000/foot wire and the quote "throws a broader soundstage." Who are you quoting? Please cite source. Please provide manufacturer and model number of the wire you're discussing. Or, did you simply invent this quote and wire as part of your objective reality? The point was that when someone makes such an assertion it is about objective reality independent of their internal brain perception about a physical source outside themselves. Therefore they are claiming that object as the source of their perception. If so we can test that assertion by inserting and removing that specific source to see if the asserted perception varies as the source does. If it does not then it is in their brain and not the physical object. Multiple such assertions can be found monthly in multiple hifi mag. publications. All without first having supported by such testing the reality of the perceptions in the physical source outside of their brains. We would all benefit greatly if they could do same first and save us all much time and cash and "audio nervosia". |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:41:38 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Peter Wieck" wrote in message With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. Opinion expressed- as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force. The idea that facts destroy enjoyment and hobbies is completely false. Many hobbies are strongly based on reliable facts, such as golf scores, lap times, bowling games, etc. Audio has always been inherently a technological hobby. There have always been attempts to measure the enjoyment-producing qualities of audio equipment. I have found it interesting to review the literature of consumer and professional audio, which goes back to the late 1920s and early 1930s. I started tracking audio in real time as it were in the middle 1950s. There have been a steady and ongoing stream of attempts to quantify the enjoyment-producing capabilities of audio systems. Indeed there has. In the book "From Tinfoil to Stereo" By Oliver Read and Robert Welch, I have been constantly amazed by the results, in the early days of recorded sound, of various live vs recorded tests performed over and over again in city after city by phonograph manufacturers in an effort to extol the virtues of the latest models of their machines. The press coverage by newspaper critics of every one of these tests, starting in the 1880's through the 1920's were always very similar: "This critic was amazed by the lifelike sound emanating from the (name phonograph make and model here). So life-like and perfect was the reproduction, that it was virtually impossible to tell the real performers from the recording made of them." Of course, we have all heard old mechanical phonographs and the mechanically recorded shellac records that were played on them. Any relationship between real music and the scratchy, telephone-like sound these devices produced was purely in the mind of the listener. Yet people were impressed enough to declare that the presentation was perfect. Makes you wonder how anybody could mistake the row of a purely mechanical phonograph with live music. When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs. The idea that facts destroy the means for discussion is a truly remarkable and fanciful thought that is widely contradicted by the facts of life. Do baseball statistics destroy the ability to have favorite baseball players? Reality is the exact opposite, most discussions of the capabilities of various players are dominated by recitations of relevant facts or figures. There's a very common reason why someone doesn't want to talk about the relevant statistics for their favorite player, and that is when the player's statistics really suck. I make my choices in audio on several often conflicting levels, including pure whim, challenge and sometimes sheer cussidness. That's a personal choice that anybody who wants to can make. In Detroit I can go to a car dealership and see brand new cars or I can go to the Henry Ford Museum and see a lot of very old ones. We have an annual large scale celebration of cars called the Woodward Dream cruise. I love it. Most of the vehicles one sees there are most definitely not new, or current, or even in daily use. I am about to rebuild a first-issue Dynaco Stereo 120 - the "glass-in-a- blender" version. Why? Not as if I need another power-amp, but for the simple pleasure of taking a Trabant and making it into an almost-VW, for an automotive analogy. And I run a bunch of tube stuff - not exactly the best 'measuring' equipment out there. But I like it, how it sounds and even (Oh, the SHAME of it!!) how it looks... Again, that's a personal choice that people get to make. I happen to have a modest amount of legacy gear, such as perfectly stock and original Dyna 120 and a CDP 101 that meet original spec, a Pioneer TX-9100 tuner, a PAT-5 and a CJ 2 preamp, etc. However, it is what it is, and that doesn't bother me a bit. I just don't insult people's intelligence by claiming any special capabilities along the lines of sonic accuracy. Actually, the 120 and the 101 sound just fine despite their frequent libeling by ignorant audiophiles. You obviously have a later model ST-120. The early ones were both unreliable and sounded terrible. Dyna eventually fixed the amp by replacing all of the transistors with later, more robust types with similar characteristics. Early 120's, for instance, had output and driver transistors (the drivers were complementary NPN/PNP and the outputs were NPN) which were hand picked for their ability to stand-off V-sub-CBs (collector-to-base voltage) as most standard transistors of the types used would not (they were being used on the ragged edge of those semiconductors' specs). The output transistors (2N3055), especially, were susceptible to blowing even with the factory picked examples. If you had a blown 120 and tried to repair it using off-the-shelf transistors, the amp would blow again soon after power was re-applied. And when a 120 went, it went. Usually a failure of one of the 2N3055s took not only the other 2N3055 with it, but the two complementary driver transistors as well! Sometime around 1970, Dyna changed the amp. They re-biased the output stage harder into class AB to get rid of the nasty-sounding cross-over notch that many of these amps exhibited and they changed all of the transistors to newer types. They also made other changes of resistors and capacitors to complete the mod. Stereo 120s made after that change, do indeed, sound just fine. So, please get off dividing into armed and hostile camps - this is emphatically NOT revealed religion. I'm not sure where this religious belief issue comes from, if not the people who can't tell the difference between the proper place for science and the proper place for religion and keep up mixing up the two. Nobody's "credibility" is at issue - except to the extent that they fault others based on said revealed religion. And then it is gone entirely. Science can be a kind of religion for some people, and religion can be a science for some people. But most people seem to have a pretty good grip on which is which and manage their influence in their lives appropriately and in accordance with their personal preferences. Yeah? Tell that to people like Enid Lumley or even Harry Pearson. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:52:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:51:40 -0700, bob wrote (in article ): There are a number of problems here. First and most importantly, we *can* measure "what people hear." It's just air compression, after all. No we can't. You just said it yourself. We can measure the air compression (and subsequent rarefaction), yes, but what we can't measure is how the human brain interprets those mechanical changes in air pressure. Actually we can and do it all the time. It's part of how we live. We sense, we think and we express ourselves. When we sense we measure our environment and turn it into thoughts and memories. When we express ourselves we make those thoughts and memories available to people and recording facilities outside ourselves. We might pick-up those variations in air pressure with our ears, but we "hear" them with our brains, and that, we cannot measure. We surely can measure the variations in air pressure that we hear with our ears, and in multiple dimensions. We have all kinds of standarized tests for doing that. Hearing tests, tests of articulation, tests of knowlege that we sense by means of hearing. Also, I'd like for you to show me a measuring device that can pick-up those variations of air pressure that we call sound and then interpret them in such a way as to tell us something about what they mean. It's called the human brain. IOW, can we measure the sound in a listening room in such a way as to tell whether or not, say, speaker cables make any difference in the way the speakers themselves perform? Sure we can - and simple listening tests like the ABX test let us do that. Furthermore we know quite a bit about how to correlate electrical measures of cable performance with the results of listening tests. Just because we can't yet effectively hook cables directly up to people's brains directly to do listening tests doesn't mean that we can't measure and understand these things. You've managed to miss my point completely, Arny. My point is that we cannot quantify the listening experience because it is an experience of interpretation, not of the mechanical act of hearing sound. For instance, it's altogether possible that a so-called "tin-eared" individual might not hear the difference, in a double-blind test, between two otherwise identical amplifiers where one is fed a clean signal and the other is fed the same signal altered by a device designed to introduce varying amounts of intermodulation distortion. He might be hearing the distortion just as everyone else in the double-blind test is hearing it, but he doesn't notice it because he (for some reason) lacks the ability to interpret what he is hearing and the other listeners can correctly interpret what they hear as distortion. In this case, the injected distortion can be easily measured and many can hear it immediately, but where are the measurements to quantify a speaker's ability, for instance, to image? Such equipment and such quantification does not (yet) exist. That's my point. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
not a 'blind' test , but a good one Target has the Altec Lansing and
Bose speakers side by side connected to the same video game/movie loop ( this is for the pc/PS/tv , quality here is too low for music ) Bose had more definition, but also had that soapy undersound that is one of the problems with virtually all speakers, the ACs were cleaner and to my ears better for the spoken word. Price : AC $50, Bose $230, choice : no clear winner. The difference in performance could really only come into focus with this kind of demo.SD |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:32:31 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): On Jul 18, 9:52*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Just because we can't yet effectively hook cables directly up to people's brains directly to do listening tests doesn't mean that we can't measure and understand these things. Measure, certainly. Understand the physical and "common" psycho- acoustical aspects in some considerable detail, certainly. But measure and understand preference, taste, expectation or peculiarities of perception - not at all. And if you need an excellent example, I cannot abide puddings of any nature, sweet potatoes or yams even as miniscule 'included ingredients' and I react violently (quite specifically) to any food or beverage that contains coffee - mocha chocolate, coffee ice-cream, flies in my Sambuca, even decaf - but I have no untoward reaction to tea, other caffeinated beverages, colas and so forth. Hearing is much like that - a mixture of hard-wiring, common physical characteristics, taste, experience, preference and so forth. Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA When it comes to cables, listening, even in a double-blind test, is jus not necessary. The laws of electronics tell us all we need to know about cables and interconnects. The very low frequencies that make up the audio signal passband (DC to 100KHz) tells us that there is not enough resistance, capacitive reactance or inductive reactance in any commercially available interconnect or cable to affect the signal IN ANY KNOWN WAY and to insist that there might just be "something" about either a complex musical signal or wire that science has, somehow, overlooked is simply naive. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"S D" wrote in message
... not a 'blind' test , but a good one Target has the Altec Lansing and Bose speakers side by side connected to the same video game/movie loop ( this is for the pc/PS/tv , quality here is too low for music ) Bose had more definition, but also had that soapy undersound that is one of the problems with virtually all speakers, the ACs were cleaner and to my ears better for the spoken word. Price : AC $50, Bose $230, choice : no clear winner. The difference in performance could really only come into focus with this kind of demo.SD Your last sentence is an assumption. It would be quite possible for an experienced reviewer of speakers to pick out the problem you cite (which I don't understand from your description) without having two speakers side-by-side. The fact that you feel you couldn't is not "truth" with a capital "T". |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from
the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period." Abx has been made into something of a strawman. Flaws are said to exist, without being able by counter testing to demonstrate, and when the straw lies covering the floor all testing is said to be a dead issue. Using something as simple as putting a cloth over connections to remove which bit of gear is active, that stubborn failure to tell which bit is the source of which claimed effect just insists to occur again and again. One can with abx or any such blind testing listen as long as desired, using musical sources of the listeners choice and prformed in their system in their listening room. One somewhat famous example of a few years ago had an audio dealer in his store system with his musical choices while using a nelson pass amp he said to know inside and out for its sonic attributes, failed to be able to spot it from an older integrated yamaha amp. One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on quality, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period. Speaking as one of the several persons who have done extended ABX testing... It works, but it does not contradict the outcomes of shorter tests, and it can be a little less sensitive. The original ABX Comparator had a battery backup for the test data to facilitated long term experiments where power might be lost. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 20, 12:01*am, wrote:
One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread. Sheesh... you heard the engine, saw the headlights, but still missed the truck. Clearly from _that_ ABX test, the two amps were indistinguishable. So, it only remains as to which amp the individual prefers in a few weeks to a few months. The human brain is a funny thing. It is entirely capable of holding two (or more) mutually exclusive ideas in itself at the same time. Until that condition changes, no single type of testing - be it ABX or Sighted, either/neither/both will tell the entire story. Searching for absolutes in any human activity, most especially one that also must account for individual perception and taste is both futile and silly. No straw men (or dogs) here. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp
and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread. "Sheesh... you heard the engine, saw the headlights, but still missed the truck. Clearly from _that_ ABX test, the two amps were indistinguishable. So, it only remains as to which amp the individual prefers in a few weeks to a few months." I could be wrong in my recall, this was not an abx test but of the kind where a cloth was placed over connections to make it blind. Days and months was the basis by which the audio dealer said he could easily pick the nelson pass amp by its by then easily spotted audio attributes. He could not spot it beyond chance. "The human brain is a funny thing. It is entirely capable of holding two (or more) mutually exclusive ideas in itself at the same time. Until that condition changes, no single type of testing - be it ABX or Sighted, either/neither/both will tell the entire story. Searching for absolutes in any human activity, most especially one that also must account for individual perception and taste is both futile and silly." Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of such a "futile and silly brain. Obfuscational remarks aside, the vicissitudes of the human brain need not be involved. If tests show a stable repeated outcome of not being able to spot some bit of gear it says the brain is stable also in its inability because the reported perception event is not associated with the alleged bit of hifi gear in question. In the case you assert, it would from test to test show random results of some times being able to do so and others not. Preference and taste need not have anything to do with it. One could assert that some bit of gear had a "midrange bloom" that "stank" or was "glorious". If that bit of gear could not be spotted such would remain irrelevant. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 20, 12:01*am, wrote: One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread. Sheesh... you heard the engine, saw the headlights, but still missed the truck. Clearly from _that_ ABX test, the two amps were indistinguishable. So, it only remains as to which amp the individual prefers in a few weeks to a few months. Suggesting that whatever preference forms, is not really due to a sonic difference. That's quite understandable. We get to prefer audio gear for reasons other than its special sound. But if he listener insists the preference *is* due to sonic difference, despite the initial negative ABX, then the way to prove that is *another* ABX, done after the putative 'acclimation' has been achieved. Simply claiming 'I've lived with these long enough to hear a difference' is not sufficient evidence, and anyone with an inkling of clue about scientific method would know this. Sighted biases exist whether listeing is 'short term' or 'long term' The only way to nullify them is to do a blind comparison. What is so blinkin' hard to understand about that? -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:50:27 -0700, Sonnova wrote
(in article ): On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:01:26 -0700, wrote (in article ): "Once again, ABX testing is useful in separating the obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - but much as my reaction to coffee and its deriviatives takes from 4 - 12 hours to manifest depending on qualtity, and then lasts for something between 48 and 72 hours, ABX testing, scrupulous measurements and complete physical understanding does NOT cover everything - especially over any extended period." Abx has been made into something of a strawman. Flaws are said to exist, without being able by counter testing to demonstrate, and when the straw lies covering the floor all testing is said to be a dead issue. Using something as simple as putting a cloth over connections to remove which bit of gear is active, that stubborn failure to tell which bit is the source of which claimed effect just insists to occur again and again. One can with abx or any such blind testing listen as long as desired, using musical sources of the listeners choice and prformed in their system in their listening room. One somewhat famous example of a few years ago had an audio dealer in his store system with his musical choices while using a nelson pass amp he said to know inside and out for its sonic attributes, failed to be able to spot it from an older integrated yamaha amp. One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread. Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate, from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant, salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. But there is. I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke." "We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi." "You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and bring me iced tea." At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under THESE circumstances. How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so often yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a restaurant). * I wondered what happened to this. I accidently hit some key and it was gone. This gives me an opportunity to finish it. Thanks, Moderators! |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 20, 6:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate, from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant, salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. But there is. From your description, this sounds like a somewhat more difficult test than ABX. The ABX version would be two cups of the same soda, and a third cup of the other, and you'd have to figure out which was the odd man out (or which two were the same). I suspect you'd have no trouble doing that (unless you suffer from performance anxiety!). I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke." "We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi." "You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and bring me iced tea." At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under THESE circumstances. How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so often yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a restaurant). In this case, it's a binary problem. There are only two possibilities, never three. So it could be easier than the taste test you were doing. Also, if you *were* fooled in a restaurant, how would you know? bob |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jul 20, 6:15*pm, Sonnova wrote: Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate, from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant, salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. But there is. From your description, this sounds like a somewhat more difficult test than ABX. The ABX version would be two cups of the same soda, and a third cup of the other, and you'd have to figure out which was the odd man out (or which two were the same). I suspect you'd have no trouble doing that (unless you suffer from performance anxiety!). I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke." "We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi." "You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and bring me iced tea." At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under THESE circumstances. How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so often yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a restaurant). In this case, it's a binary problem. There are only two possibilities, never three. So it could be easier than the taste test you were doing. Also, if you *were* fooled in a restaurant, how would you know? bob Because I can always tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi UNLESS I am tasting the two together. In that case, the taste of the first one (doesn't matter which) ruins my ability to identify the second one. That's why I often fail the D-B test but will always be able to tell Coke from Pepsi on the first taste in a restaurant setting. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
bob wrote:
On Jul 20, 6:15?pm, Sonnova wrote: Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate, from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant, salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. But there is. From your description, this sounds like a somewhat more difficult test than ABX. The ABX version would be two cups of the same soda, and a third cup of the other, and you'd have to figure out which was the odd man out (or which two were the same). I suspect you'd have no trouble doing that (unless you suffer from performance anxiety!). I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke." "We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi." "You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and bring me iced tea." At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under THESE circumstances. How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so often yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a restaurant). In this case, it's a binary problem. There are only two possibilities, never three. So it could be easier than the taste test you were doing. Also, if you *were* fooled in a restaurant, how would you know? bob The idea that Coke and Pepsi are indistinguishable in blind comparison is a strawman. The gist of the famous "Pepsi Challenge' was that in blind sip tests, people tended to prefer Pepsi - thus obviously there was *difference*. The flaw in the Pepsi challenge (again, a test of PREFERENCE) was that , like presenting two audio similar audio clips where one is louder than the other, in the SHORT term (a sip test), the sweeter taste of Pepsi will often 'win' , but might not over the long term. Ditto the louder of two audio presentations...exciting in the short term, possibly annoying in the long term. None of this is particularly germane to ABX tests for sheer difference. It's actually RECOMMENDED that such audio DBTs include a 'training' period, to *increase* sensitivity to possibly subtle differences. The crucial methodological point remains that when it comes time to actually identify X, it be done blind. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Sonnova" wrote in message
One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. IME the anecdote above is one of the reasons why we invented the ABX test. In the ABX version of the test above, you would have correctly-labelled bottles of Coke and Pepsi to compare to. I think you would find that it makes all the difference in the world. It is easy to get over-confident, be afflicted by performance anxiety, and make dumb mistakes. The same things happen during sighted evaluations, but the visual clues conceal the errors. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
On Jul 20, 12:01 am, wrote: One somewhat famous example of a few years ago had an audio dealer in his store system with his musical choices while using a nelson pass amp he said to know inside and out for its sonic attributes, failed to be able to spot it from an older integrated yamaha amp. One would think that dealer had spent hours upon hours hearing that amp and should know it in a snap compared to the cheaper spread. Clearly from _that_ ABX test, the two amps were indistinguishable. So, it only remains as to which amp the individual prefers in a few weeks to a few months. What ABX test? I see no mention of an ABX test in the car dealer anecdote, above. What am I missing? |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Sonnova" wrote in message
Because I can always tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi UNLESS I am tasting the two together. In that case, the taste of the first one (doesn't matter which) ruins my ability to identify the second one. That's why I often fail the D-B test but will always be able to tell Coke from Pepsi on the first taste in a restaurant setting. This makes a lot of sense. The explanation is obvious - our sense of taste has a lot of latency. IOW, I sometimes enjoy the flavor of certain spicy or sweet foods or meals for more than an hour after I eat. Case in point is some sweet onion salsa my wife and I were enjoying last week. I'm not talking about dyspepsia, I'm talking about residual flavor in the mouth and tongue. Hearing at moderate levels seems to have far less latency, hardly any latency at all. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Sonnova wrote:
my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. But there is. I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke." I took some of those tests in the New Coke Test era. Basically, the cups were too small to generate aftertaste. And putting the product into a cup changed the relative ratio of CO2 content (which differed). One time I demanded ... and got ... whole cans. Then, I could reliably tell the difference. I can tell the difference between real ("Mexican") Coke and fructose Coke only after two or three cans. But after several cans, its really obvious. There is an aftertaste difference. Normally, however, I drink Diet Coke. No matter how many cans I drink, I cannot tell the difference between Aspartame and Splenda, unless of course the Aspartame has hydrolyzed (yuck!). Doug McDonald |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:07:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message Because I can always tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi UNLESS I am tasting the two together. In that case, the taste of the first one (doesn't matter which) ruins my ability to identify the second one. That's why I often fail the D-B test but will always be able to tell Coke from Pepsi on the first taste in a restaurant setting. This makes a lot of sense. The explanation is obvious - our sense of taste has a lot of latency. IOW, I sometimes enjoy the flavor of certain spicy or sweet foods or meals for more than an hour after I eat. Case in point is some sweet onion salsa my wife and I were enjoying last week. I'm not talking about dyspepsia, I'm talking about residual flavor in the mouth and tongue. Hearing at moderate levels seems to have far less latency, hardly any latency at all. In D-B wine tastings, they often provide a carafe of water or perhaps some saltine crackers to "clear the palate" between samples of wine. Whether this would work for cola tastings, I don't know. And you are right. As far as I know, there is no such holdover for sound as there is for tastes that linger on the tongue. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:12:59 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): bob wrote: On Jul 20, 6:15?pm, Sonnova wrote: Even though I generally agree that ABX and other double-blind testing methodologies are very scientific and should be very telling, I can relate, from personal experience at least one instance where it doesn't work. I HATE Pepsi Cola. I find it a vile and disgusting beverage with an unpleasant, salty aftertaste. OTOH, I love Coca-Cola and am, in fact, a "Coca-holic". All my life people have tried to tell me that there really is no appreciable difference between the two beverages and often have designed double-blind tests to prove it to me. In One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. But there is. From your description, this sounds like a somewhat more difficult test than ABX. The ABX version would be two cups of the same soda, and a third cup of the other, and you'd have to figure out which was the odd man out (or which two were the same). I suspect you'd have no trouble doing that (unless you suffer from performance anxiety!). I can go into a restaurant and order a Coke. So many people find Coke and Pepsi interchangeable, that the waiter or waitress fails to tell me that they sell Pepsi, not Coke and they will bring me a Cola. I cannot be fooled. One sip is all it takes. "This is Pepsi. I asked for Coke." "We don't have Coke, we sell Pepsi." "You should have told me that when I ordered, please take this away and bring me iced tea." At this "test" I have NEVER failed, I can always tell Coke from Pepsi under THESE circumstances. How does that fit in with definitive double-blind test scenario? (before you answer, I already know why I have failed the double-blind cola tests so often yet can always tell when I've been served Pepsi in place of Coke in a restaurant). In this case, it's a binary problem. There are only two possibilities, never three. So it could be easier than the taste test you were doing. Also, if you *were* fooled in a restaurant, how would you know? bob The idea that Coke and Pepsi are indistinguishable in blind comparison is a strawman. No it's not - see below. Many people have told me that they cannot tell the difference and that was the source of the many times that I have been challenged on my assertion that I hate Pepsi and love Coke. The gist of the famous "Pepsi Challenge' was that in blind sip tests, people tended to prefer Pepsi The "Pepsi Challenge" is a marketing gimmick. How do you know that any such challenge was actually performed? Besides, if the two are tasted together, NOBODY could tell the difference because the taste of the first one lingers in the mouth destroying one's ability to taste the second unless the palate were somehow cleared with something totally dissimilar between tastes. - thus obviously there was *difference*. The flaw in the Pepsi challenge (again, a test of PREFERENCE) was that , like presenting two audio similar audio clips where one is louder than the other, in the SHORT term (a sip test), the sweeter taste of Pepsi Once the taste buds were coated with corn sweetener from one cola, the tasters would be unlikely to be able to discern a sweetness difference in the second. will often 'win' , but might not over the long term. Ditto the louder of two audio presentations...exciting in the short term, possibly annoying in the long term. None of this is particularly germane to ABX tests for sheer difference. It's actually RECOMMENDED that such audio DBTs include a 'training' period, to *increase* sensitivity to possibly subtle differences. The crucial methodological point remains that when it comes time to actually identify X, it be done blind. My purpose in pointing this out was not cast any aspersions on D-B tests in audio Ð I think that boat has pretty-much sailed. But it was rather to show a real D-B test situation where D-B tests don't really work which suggests that their might be others. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:13:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. IME the anecdote above is one of the reasons why we invented the ABX test. In the ABX version of the test above, you would have correctly-labelled bottles of Coke and Pepsi to compare to. I think you would find that it makes all the difference in the world. I don't follow you. How can the test be double-blind if the participants can see from the labels which they are drinking? In the test above, the samples were correctly labeled, but the labels were covered and the line-up of the three samples was scrambled by someone who didn't see the labels before they were covered. It is easy to get over-confident, be afflicted by performance anxiety, and make dumb mistakes. True, but none of those is the flaw in this test. The flaw in this test is that the tastes of these soft drinks linger on the palate obfuscating one's ability to tell whether or not the second taste is different from the first. The same things happen during sighted evaluations, but the visual clues conceal the errors. Apparently. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of
such a "futile and silly brain. "Can you cite a reference for this claim you make?" As you seem to be evoking a scientific survey or some such, no. However simple observation of implied such abilities in any hifi mag. of the subjective variety will serve. They do not start "auditions" with such a self declaration but certainly leave the reader by article's end with the firm impression that such ability to wrap their ears around some supposed sonic attributes is absolute. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
wrote: Hmmm, subjective folk declare absolute their abilities regardless of such a "futile and silly brain. Can you cite a reference for this claim you make? One of the the leading subjectivist audio journals in the world calls itself "The Absolute Sound". The notion of subjectivist reviewing seems kinda self-contradictory. If a person's perceptions are unique and relevant only to that person, why would anybody else be interested in them? |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 21, 10:31*pm, Sonnova wrote:
But getting back to audio, is it possible that (some of) the same pitfalls that occur in a taste-test such as those we've been discussing could also be present in D-B test for audio components? No more than either of them would share the same pitfalls as DB medical trials. You're talking about very different biological mechanisms here. The aftertaste problem suggests that taste tests might require some "palate cleansing" between tastes. Whereas for listening tests, any gap between samples decreases the sensitivity of the test. It may be that you're drawing too strong a conclusion from the taste tests you ran yourself. I'm sure you tried to be as scientific as possible, but there may be a better test design that would produce a different result. bob |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:13:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message One case I rememeber well, They filled styrofoam cups, one with* Coke, one with Pepsi, and one with some other cola, usually a diet drink, but sometimes a repeat of either the Coke or the Pepsi. They wrote, with a felt marker, which was which on the side of the cup and then cover the marking with masking tape. next they had some third party move the cups around from the position that they person who marked them and covered the markings left them. That meant that now, nobody knew which cola was where. Then they asked me to choose. I have to admit that I couldn't tell which of the major colas were which. The diet Cola I was able to pick out, but the Coke from the Pepsi? Not reliably. Sometimes I could and sometimes I couldn't. By the scientific results of these tests (and I've been challenged more than once) it would seem that there is no real difference between Coke and Pepsi. IME the anecdote above is one of the reasons why we invented the ABX test. In the ABX version of the test above, you would have correctly-labelled bottles of Coke and Pepsi to compare to. I think you would find that it makes all the difference in the world. I don't follow you. How can the test be double-blind if the participants can see from the labels which they are drinking? The fluids for reference purposes are clearly labelled. The fluids for taste testing still have their indentities concealed. This is exactly what ABX testing entails, and there have never been any serious complaints about it. Additionally, ABX testing includes user-defined periods of silence between the alternatives. The idea was to address sonic latency if such an effect exists, or to address latency in the equipment. It was found that the ear is far more sensitive when the periods of silence are minimized. If the periods of silence are a second or more, listener reliability and sensitivity fall off pretty dramatically. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Blind testing: the epistemology | High End Audio | |||
Blind Testing - Some Further Thoughts | Audio Opinions | |||
double-blind testing | High End Audio | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Equation for blind testing? | Audio Opinions |