wrote in message ...
"By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm belief
in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability."

Science proceeds not by proving some thesis but by failing to disprove it.
The thesis at hand is that a benchmark of listening alone testing now
exists showing inability to distinguish amps, wire, etc. by listening
alone even and especially by those holding the contrary view. That, as
science, is what takes it outside the realm of belief system. Science to
support the contrary thesis would have to show a constant and continuing
failure, and thus disprove the thesis.


It is bad science if it is the wrong test for it's purpose. In this case if
it is unable to include the emotional and right-brain aspects of musical
enjoyment in determining the difference. No matter how useful it may be
elsewhere in the audio field for developing codecs, listening for specific
audio cues, etc.

"Sorry, I spent years in the food industry were we spent enormous amounts
of
time, energy, and intellectual capital on testing...much much more
sophisticated than the testing you suggest. Simple blind comparative
testing was use to answer simple questions..."

And we have before us the simple question of can by listening alone can
one bit of audio gear be distinguished from another, can a difference, any
difference be shown. That is is simple as it gets. Any other complex
attributes suggested to exist between gear is mute if the simple reality
of simple difference, any difference can not be demonstrated by listening
alone tests.

Not simple at all. We are evaluating how well the equipment under tests
reproduces a musical experience, measured against our life experience of how
live music sounds to us. And that involves an involuntary emotional
component that this is no evidence that quick-switch, comparative testing
can include.

"
This isn't a question of science. It is a question of questionable
testing
proceedures used as a blind article of faith."

That is atestable thesis, we will look forward to the results. Such
testing is the bread and butter in all other areas of human testing. If
it isn't valid for audio then it is not valid anywhere else either and
many decades of research in humans will have to be tossed.

Absolutely a false premise.

So the
evidence for such an extraordinary claim that audio is an exception will
require some equally extraordinary demonstration.

Except that it is not extraordinary because the assertion is based on a
false premise.

Astrology and esp etc.
make that exact same claim. Testing can hand has been done on such thing
with expected results. The same litany of excuses those folk propose for
their failure to demonstrate any reality to their claims is exactly the
same offered for those whose worldview is upset when listening alone
testing doesn't support their worldview.

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:

By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm
belief in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of
questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being
measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.

A cult religion apparently also embraced by every accredited psychology
department in the country. Talk about brainwashing.

Sorry, Bob. in those departments it is only one type of test among
many....and there are very many variations of DBT'ng. The kind promoted
here...quick-switch, compartive DBT'ng...would not be used in many
situations and has not been validated as providing the same results as
blind, monadic testing among a large sample of audiophiles. Which by all
the underlying assumptions would be a test much less likely to interfere
with a true evaluation of musical accuracy, including unconscious emotional
reaction.

The differences arise as to how to answer questions about the
origin of
the perceptions we have when experiencing reproduction of sound
events.
It is equally valid to suggest that much of the perception resides
in the
brain and does not exist until after the signal has reached the
ears and
that perspective is one that commends itself well to testing using
what
are routine approaches in all other areas of human testing.

Sorry, I spent years in the food industry were we spent enormous
amounts of
time, energy, and intellectual capital on testing...much much more
sophisticated than the testing you suggest. Simple blind comparative
testing was use to answer simple questions...is the salt level
correct, is
the sweetness correct, how do they affect preference, etc. The tests
were
blinded to eliminate differences in color or appearance, often
because we
were dealing with prototypes that were not fully developed. But when
it
came to evaluating the overall appeal of the product, with the
decision on
the line to go to test marketing (and therefore spend a lot of money
and
expose the product to the competition) we always used monadic testing
among
samples of no less than 300 people. Therefore a simple test might
involve
600 people (test and control). A complex test could involve twice
that
many. The were blind (what we call "white box" but they were not
comparative). They were used/eaten in the environment of normal use,
and
were rated after. Something similar would be a big step forward in
audio
evaluation vs. DBt. I can't speak for othe subjectivists, but I know
I (and
at least some others) simply want appropriate testing rather than
inappropriate testing.

Why in the world would we expect that the protocols of food testing
would be appropriate for audio testing, or pharmaceutical testing,
or...

Because the underlying test techniques have strengths and weaknesses, and
must be chosen for the task at hand.
Obviously, there are implementation differences.

wrote in message ...
"I see sense in your words and i respect your words. But this is not so
simple. Believe me, i see many things. I dont want be part of one or
another extrem. This is problem here, you guys are EXTREM. I can accept
some things, but not all. I am lucky that i dont need to buy amps and
speakers. Everyone can make this if know something about electronic.
And i try many things. Often i expect a lot, sometimes not, and results
are not always like i expect. This is important! Theory about
foolishnes is here very weak. Some amps really make change sound! For
me this is so obviously that i really dont know what to say here and
how to response. You have your believes i have mine. And then we have
short-circuit. I dont want this. I try dont look further here, and
maybe sometime all we find on same wavelenght in better frame of mind"

It is easy to make an amp sound different and the electrical parameters by
which to do so are well known. For those amps not trying to sound
different but to only increase the signal as faithfully as it enters the
amp we have become so successful as to have created a commodity market.
In a large series of tests when the obvious and well known amp differences
are controlled,ie. frequency response and staying within it's power supply
design goals, by using listening alone they cann't be distinguished one
from another. People who did accept that such amps can sound different
and say they experience it on a common basis find that using listening
alone they cann't distinguish the amps. That is the benchmark of data and
experience from which we can have such a discussion by asking the question
- why do the differences said to exist and be heard disappear when
listening alone testing is done?

Are you speaking of Tom Nousaine's tests. That's the only "large set" of
dbt's of amps claiming no difference that I know of. And if I recall correc
tly, all we have is Tom's anecdotal telling of the results of those tests.
I don't recall they were ever published or even a white paper issued. Am I
wrong?

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them.
The
existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
many bad ones!

Yes, true! Of course! And this differences are often AUDIBLE. I believe
that you think so too (but some persons here dont think so). This is
only thing what is in this discussion important to me. I dont try here
explain why is one amp better or not.


That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.


Of course, but you understand me wrong! And i hope that you dont think
that i give this yob to you. This long yob i grant to "scientific"
persons what think that all CD-players and amps sound same. Impossible
or not, it is more usefull.


Dejan Petrovic

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where
firm
belief in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of
questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being
measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by
the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.

A cult religion apparently also embraced by every accredited
psychology
department in the country. Talk about brainwashing.

Sorry, Bob. in those departments it is only one type of test among
many

Sorry Harry. Perceptual psychologists would never use anything other
than a DBT for listening tests of partial loudness thresholds. And for
the umpteenth time, please note that your post referred to DBTs with no
qualifiers. If you want us to take you seriously, the very least you
could do is be precise in your language (or else stop complaining that
people are misinterpreting you).

Now, it is true that psychologists-and audio professionals--use various
forms of DBTs. It is NOT true that objectivists here insist on using
only one form of DBT. I'll be glad to give credence to any form of DBT
you can pull off. But I note that you still haven't pulled off any, and
you continue to insist that the only ones worth doing are impossible to
do. Very convenient.

Some people here recommend quick-switching ABX tests over other forms
of DBTs, and they do so for good reason. The scientific literature
demonstrates that such listening tests are more sensitive than those
that do not allow subjects to do proximate comparisons. A psychologist
would also typically use a quick-switching test to measure
thresholds--unless, of course, he were testing aural memory. So even if
you were to amend your original statement to add your usual qualifiers,
you would be wrong.

bob

On 15 May 2005 22:52:57 GMT, "_Dejan_" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them. The
existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
many bad ones!

Yes, true! Of course! And this differences are often AUDIBLE.

Not among the good ones...........

I believe
that you think so too (but some persons here dont think so). This is
only thing what is in this discussion important to me. I dont try here
explain why is one amp better or not.

That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.

Of course, but you understand me wrong! And i hope that you dont think
that i give this yob to you. This long yob i grant to "scientific"
persons what think that all CD-players and amps sound same.

The good ones do.

Impossible
or not, it is more usefull.

No, what was *really* useful was all the engineering effort that went
into making sonically transparent CD players and amplifiers available
to all. The 'high end' in 2005 is merely big boys toys and snobbery.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message

...

............. People who did accept that such amps can sound
different
and say they experience it on a common basis find that using
listening
alone they cann't distinguish the amps.


The worst thing is that this work probably in that way. Fantastic
formula to cheat peoples. For me is enough hard only read this. Listen
can be only nightmare. I listen music to enjoy, not for test.
And i dont know all reasons why this metod dont work. I dont even know
how this work. This is not my job, and i dont care about this. Your job
is to find better solution (if you are so preoccupied with this)
because this solution obviously dont work. And then you can talk about
testing, not before.
So now, go to work!


Petrovic Dejan

"you have documentation? Lab reports?
Or do I have to repeat Dejan's remark: "I do not see science here, I
only see talk about science."

Which is the only thing the objectivists are good at: talk about "science"
in a rather metaphysical way."

Review the archives of this group to see discussion of the testing over
several years that has been done. To make the question even more
intresting, a standing offer of around $6000 for wire, $10000 for amps,
$1000000 for some of the really fringe claims is available. In past
cycles of this question, either here or in another list there was mention
of similar offers in other countries for substantual sums, finland is one
that comes to mind but there were others also. We would be happy to
arrange to have you try for the money, and happy to add your datum point
to the set of examples where folk could not demonstrate that a difference
could be shown by listening alone blind testing. One discussed here in
some detail before was an audio store owner who thought his then top of
the line pass labs and an older yamaha in his store using his gear would
be a cake walk, not so.

Just do the test, tap dancing will not make it's reality go away.

"It is bad science if it is the wrong test for it's purpose. In this
case if it is unable to include the emotional and right-brain aspects
of musical enjoyment in determining the difference. No matter how
useful it may be elsewhere in the audio field for developing codecs,
listening for specific audio cues, etc."

Irrelevant strawman in the extreme. Have two amps, one said to have
all of the dubious above, another judged by you not to have same. Do
the blind test by listening alone. If you can not spot a difference,
any difference, any such need no longer be considered valid. Will you
soon be asking to demonstrate this ability? There are folk here who
have repeatably offered to do it, you bring your own right brain.

"Not simple at all. We are evaluating how well the equipment under
tests reproduces a musical experience, measured against our life
experience of how live music sounds to us. And that involves an
involuntary emotional component that this is no evidence that
quick-switch, comparative testing can include."

A review of the archives would show innumberable times it has been
pointed out that no such contraists are required, another strawman.
You can listen as long as you want, on your gear, in your home, using
your music; all that is required is that yyou not know which bit of

As for the "life experience" and "musical experience", again
irrelevant strawman used in an attempt to divert the issue. Take an
amp of your choice said to create this "experience" and another
cchosen by you said not to do so and by listening alone demonstrate a
difference, any difference. If you cann't then we have our answer.
This is not rocket science and the attempts to inject some mystical
element into the question brings us smack back into the same arena of
excuses used by astrology and esp etc. who try to obscure the basic
situation wherein time after time they are shown not to have validity.
Put the burden of any thing your imagination can muster said to reside
in one amp and not in another. If you can not tell which amp is which
by detecting difference then the question is answered wherin the
source of such proported aspects pasted onto the amp reside.

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where
firm
belief in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of
questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being
measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by
the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.

A cult religion apparently also embraced by every accredited
psychology
department in the country. Talk about brainwashing.

Sorry, Bob. in those departments it is only one type of test among
many

Sorry Harry. Perceptual psychologists would never use anything other
than a DBT for listening tests of partial loudness thresholds. And for
the umpteenth time, please note that your post referred to DBTs with no
qualifiers. If you want us to take you seriously, the very least you
could do is be precise in your language (or else stop complaining that
people are misinterpreting you).

Now, it is true that psychologists-and audio professionals--use various
forms of DBTs. It is NOT true that objectivists here insist on using
only one form of DBT. I'll be glad to give credence to any form of DBT
you can pull off. But I note that you still haven't pulled off any, and
you continue to insist that the only ones worth doing are impossible to
do. Very convenient.

Some people here recommend quick-switching ABX tests over other forms
of DBTs, and they do so for good reason. The scientific literature
demonstrates that such listening tests are more sensitive than those
that do not allow subjects to do proximate comparisons. A psychologist
would also typically use a quick-switching test to measure
thresholds--unless, of course, he were testing aural memory. So even if
you were to amend your original statement to add your usual qualifiers,
you would be wrong.

You are right. I was referring to quick-switch, comparative DBT's a la the
ABX promoted here for so long by Arny. And I can agree with you that some
kind of blind test is appropriate to determine, not just differences, but
also preferences and the reasons for those preferences. Unfortunately ,
this is not "measuring thresholds". This is evaluating audio and requires
relaxed listening over periods of some length followed by a rating. It is a
common test technique, but it is not a one-person test. It must be done by
dozens, even hundreds, of people and then statistically compared to
determine difference on rated quality and on specific audio characteristics.
It is the statistical measure of difference that determine whether there is
a difference/preference, but it also measures "what" the perceived
difference/preference is in terms of audio characteristics. Most
importantly, it its a test that allows the emotional response to music
first, and then an evaluation of that response.

Since such a test is impossible for one person to do, and since an ab test
protocol for the home has not yet been developed which is simple enough to
be practical and transparent, I believe for now sighted home listening, even
with its possible error, is superior to using ABX. ABX or even direct,
comparative AB testing are two cognitive and left-brain IMO to actual
measure what they profess to measure. Perhaps that will change if we can get
a non-quick-switch, semi-monadic, transparent home ab test protocol nailed
down.

_Dejan_ wrote:
............. People who did accept that such amps can sound
different and say they experience it on a common basis find that
using listening alone they cann't distinguish the amps.


The worst thing is that this work probably in that way. Fantastic
formula to cheat peoples. For me is enough hard only read this. Listen
can be only nightmare. I listen music to enjoy, not for test.
And i dont know all reasons why this metod dont work. I dont even know
how this work. This is not my job, and i dont care about this. Your
job is to find better solution (if you are so preoccupied with this)
because this solution obviously dont work. And then you can talk about
testing, not before.
So now, go to work!

Hey Pet,
How do you determine if some piece of gear is not up to your definition of
good sound? You might enjoy listening to your crappy kitchen radio and be
contented. (And continuing your logic, you would not have an idea of
upgrading?)
Do you compare different components and how? Or do you buy a new piece of
gear just by recommendation?
And what kind of process helps you evaluating if you feel a component is
below your standards?
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

_Dejan_ wrote:
And, you probably dont have problems with components and sound. You
have less then 0.01% distorsions. Voila! Why you then reading this?
Just dont tell me that you are soooo good man and you want help to
others. You are allready happy with your sound and its time for
something new. I see you like F1 so you can be another Schumacher. But
this is not so easy like telling nonsenses.
Or, maybe you trying to find speakers with 0.0001% distorsions. This
is only thing what you need. Like i see in this group we have
scientists, so you are maybe another one and you maybe have idea how
to achieve this. I am very interested in this. You know much about
CD-players, maybe about speakers too. Horns, TQWP, transmission line,
bass reflex, closed box, variovent, open baffle, MKP, MKT, Elcos, air
coils, ferrites, cooper foil coils, MF resistors..bla..bla....single
drive speakers, two-way, three-way, or more??, co-axial speakers,
tri-axial?...passive crossovers, active.. What is better for you?

Pet, what in the world makes you think your opinion has any more weight than
tose of others? You can list all the expressions you have heard or read
about, that doesn't give you a PhD either. To me it seems more you are
missing an academic title and want to proof that you have almost accumulated
the same amount of knowledge if not more.
I think this is foolish and also your neglected aversion against scientific
approach. Who are you to decide if a certain test is valid or not. I think
it much more foolish to pretend being an expert, but with all credentials
missing.
Or is it not so?

you again dont hear differences because are distorsons always high? I
can only gues what you think about peoples what cares about materials
for boxes, even about varnish. This is hard to measure. Many things
can be strange to me too, but i am openend mind, you are not, and
this is not good. Sorry.

And how do you know that the poster is *not* "open mind". Your open
mindedness seems much smaller, because you do not even want to experiment,
but believe you have already enough understanding.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...


Not among the good ones...........

This is RELATIVELY true. And i say *often*, look again.
BTW, this remind me to one song "Black/White World"(translation).
But, i see colors.


The good ones do.

Again. Wich is "good one"?-I dont ask for answer.
Bad/good? Black/white? Nothing more? In this moment i see ideological
differences too. And i am happy with this - with differences i see
colors.
But i see logic in you answer too. In theory one amp must be better
then another. If we now lay down all amps onto scale: from begin-bad
one, to finish-good one. How are big differences betwen first and
last?-biggest. Betwen one and next?-Veeeery Little - a lot amps is in
the market. So your answer is logical. In the same time, price
increasing of amps on this scale is for surely not linear. Far from
that. With many peaks and drops. This is nothing new.



Impossible
or not, it is more usefull.

No, what was *really* useful was all the engineering effort that went
into making sonically transparent CD players and amplifiers available
to all. The 'high end' in 2005 is merely big boys toys and snobbery.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


I have not changed my mind. But good point. I am from poor country. I
dont have money. All audio gear what i have i made myself. Except
tweaked CD-Player wich is now broken. Even new laser is in this moment
to expensive to me. Living in better world is my dream.
In start i say "High-End", and Sullivan ask me to define this, but i
resist. I dont give him answer - my error. To me is not neccesary that
good component need to be expensive. And i dont say that are overpriced
componets always better.
But theory wich lead to conclussion that all amplifiers and CD-players
have same sound is crap. This is reason why i dont want read to much
about DBT, but last 3 days i spend my time to this like never before.
Enough for me. I dont like the way how are results of DBT interpreted
and published. Results of DBT can be only informations, NOT final
answer. Audio DBT is more ideology then science to me, with many holes.

If i change my mind, you will be know.
Thanks for replays

Cheers

When i start this thread i have no clue what that would be. In fact, i
dont like discussions, because of big probability of hard words,
sparcles, etc. Ironically, *I* was guilt for this (i start this, and
some bad emotions are from me). Maybe is to late, but now i want stop
this like i was start: with apologyes. This dont mean that i think
different then before (sorry for that), but this discussion is endless
(like many others).
My belief: True is somewhere in the middle (sorry again).
Providentially, we all have ears and we can make answer for yourself.
For shure, never again one single word from me because is this
expirience awful for me, and probably for others. I come back to my
cave.
Thanks for answers, bye.
Peace

Petrovic Dejan

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where
firm
belief in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless
of
questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being
measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt
by
the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.

A cult religion apparently also embraced by every accredited
psychology
department in the country. Talk about brainwashing.

Sorry, Bob. in those departments it is only one type of test
among
many

Sorry Harry. Perceptual psychologists would never use anything
other
than a DBT for listening tests of partial loudness thresholds. And
for
the umpteenth time, please note that your post referred to DBTs
with no
qualifiers. If you want us to take you seriously, the very least
you
could do is be precise in your language (or else stop complaining
that
people are misinterpreting you).

Now, it is true that psychologists-and audio professionals--use
various
forms of DBTs. It is NOT true that objectivists here insist on
using
only one form of DBT. I'll be glad to give credence to any form of
DBT
you can pull off. But I note that you still haven't pulled off any,
and
you continue to insist that the only ones worth doing are
impossible to
do. Very convenient.

Some people here recommend quick-switching ABX tests over other
forms
of DBTs, and they do so for good reason. The scientific literature
demonstrates that such listening tests are more sensitive than
those
that do not allow subjects to do proximate comparisons. A
psychologist
would also typically use a quick-switching test to measure
thresholds--unless, of course, he were testing aural memory. So
even if
you were to amend your original statement to add your usual
qualifiers,
you would be wrong.

You are right. I was referring to quick-switch, comparative DBT's a
la the
ABX promoted here for so long by Arny. And I can agree with you that
some
kind of blind test is appropriate to determine, not just differences,
but
also preferences and the reasons for those preferences.

Whoa, there. DBTs can determine differences and preferences.
Determining the reasons for those preferences is either trivial (ask
the subjects why they preferred something), or extremely difficult (as
in, I don't even know how I'd begin to tackle that one). Even Sean
Olive doesn't claim to have determined WHY people prefer flat speakers
with good dispersion. He only knows that those characteristics
correlate with listener preferences.

Unfortunately ,
this is not "measuring thresholds".

Whoa, again. Determining difference is most definitely "measuring
thresholds." By definition.

bob

"Ban" wrote in message
...
_Dejan_ wrote:
And, you probably dont have problems with components and sound. You
have less then 0.01% distorsions. Voila! Why you then reading this?
Just dont tell me that you are soooo good man and you want help to
others. You are allready happy with your sound and its time for
something new. I see you like F1 so you can be another Schumacher.
But
this is not so easy like telling nonsenses.
Or, maybe you trying to find speakers with 0.0001% distorsions. This
is only thing what you need. Like i see in this group we have
scientists, so you are maybe another one and you maybe have idea how
to achieve this. I am very interested in this. You know much about
CD-players, maybe about speakers too. Horns, TQWP, transmission
line,
bass reflex, closed box, variovent, open baffle, MKP, MKT, Elcos,
air
coils, ferrites, cooper foil coils, MF resistors..bla..bla....single
drive speakers, two-way, three-way, or more??, co-axial speakers,
tri-axial?...passive crossovers, active.. What is better for you?

Pet, what in the world makes you think your opinion has any more
weight than
tose of others? You can list all the expressions you have heard or
read
about, that doesn't give you a PhD either. To me it seems more you
are
missing an academic title and want to proof that you have almost
accumulated
the same amount of knowledge if not more.
I think this is foolish and also your neglected aversion against
scientific
approach. Who are you to decide if a certain test is valid or not. I
think
it much more foolish to pretend being an expert, but with all
credentials
missing.
Or is it not so?

you again dont hear differences because are distorsons always high?
I
can only gues what you think about peoples what cares about
materials
for boxes, even about varnish. This is hard to measure. Many things
can be strange to me too, but i am openend mind, you are not, and
this is not good. Sorry.

And how do you know that the poster is *not* "open mind". Your open
mindedness seems much smaller, because you do not even want to
experiment,
but believe you have already enough understanding.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy



Yes, i know, i tell him to hard words. Its answer is probably free of
bad intention. And my reaction is like from idiot. This is not hard to
confess to me. But in this group are some peoples wich have its
believes, and THIS peoples talk free of of any another possibility. (in
a way like "this is like that, story is over").

Please accept my appology for my behaviour

"Ban" wrote in message
...
Hey Pet,
How do you determine if some piece of gear is not up to your
definition of
good sound? You might enjoy listening to your crappy kitchen radio
and be
contented. (And continuing your logic, you would not have an idea of
upgrading?)
Do you compare different components and how? Or do you buy a new
piece of
gear just by recommendation?
And what kind of process helps you evaluating if you feel a component
is
below your standards?
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy


I am tired.
....listening, buying, testing, recommendation and crappy kitchen
radio....
In short: Peoples here give me advice that is not important wich
CD-player i need to buy because all CD-players have low distortion. I
have no comment. If is this result of advanced scientific listening
testing, then i dont want test nevermore. I know, i am Pet because i
think so, but what i can? Because i am Pet.

I am out

Greetings

wrote in message ...
Just do the test, tap dancing will not make it's reality go away.

"It is bad science if it is the wrong test for it's purpose. In this
case if it is unable to include the emotional and right-brain aspects
of musical enjoyment in determining the difference. No matter how
useful it may be elsewhere in the audio field for developing codecs,
listening for specific audio cues, etc."

Irrelevant strawman in the extreme. Have two amps, one said to have
all of the dubious above, another judged by you not to have same. Do
the blind test by listening alone. If you can not spot a difference,
any difference, any such need no longer be considered valid. Will you
soon be asking to demonstrate this ability? There are folk here who
have repeatably offered to do it, you bring your own right brain.

"Not simple at all. We are evaluating how well the equipment under
tests reproduces a musical experience, measured against our life
experience of how live music sounds to us. And that involves an
involuntary emotional component that this is no evidence that
quick-switch, comparative testing can include."

A review of the archives would show innumberable times it has been
pointed out that no such contraists are required, another strawman.
You can listen as long as you want, on your gear, in your home, using
your music; all that is required is that yyou not know which bit of

As for the "life experience" and "musical experience", again
irrelevant strawman used in an attempt to divert the issue. Take an
amp of your choice said to create this "experience" and another
cchosen by you said not to do so and by listening alone demonstrate a
difference, any difference. If you cann't then we have our answer.
This is not rocket science and the attempts to inject some mystical
element into the question brings us smack back into the same arena of
excuses used by astrology and esp etc. who try to obscure the basic
situation wherein time after time they are shown not to have validity.
Put the burden of any thing your imagination can muster said to reside
in one amp and not in another. If you can not tell which amp is which
by detecting difference then the question is answered wherin the
source of such proported aspects pasted onto the amp reside.


I am reminded of what the mathematician at HE2005 said about engineers --
they are also too busy to get to the end to bother to examine the underlying
premises. I simply and profoundly disagree, and have indicated why. You
are not buying. I can't see that this discussion has to go any further.

On 18 May 2005 01:14:18 GMT, "_Dejan_" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...


Not among the good ones...........

This is RELATIVELY true.

It's true to a level well below human perception. And that includes
yours.

And i say *often*, look again.
BTW, this remind me to one song "Black/White World"(translation).
But, i see colors.

The good ones do.

Again. Wich is "good one"?-I dont ask for answer.
Bad/good? Black/white? Nothing more? In this moment i see ideological
differences too. And i am happy with this - with differences i see
colors.

We all do - but sometimes there's no colour to be seen.

But i see logic in you answer too. In theory one amp must be better
then another.

In practice also, they are all different - but not *audibly* so.

If we now lay down all amps onto scale: from begin-bad
one, to finish-good one. How are big differences betwen first and
last?-biggest. Betwen one and next?-Veeeery Little - a lot amps is in
the market. So your answer is logical. In the same time, price
increasing of amps on this scale is for surely not linear. Far from
that. With many peaks and drops. This is nothing new.

Indeed so, which means that the majority of good mid-price amps all
sound the same - and they are sonically transparent. It's only at the
very bottom and the very top of the market that you find inferior
products. Strange, but true. It's not an asymptote, it's a bathtub
curve.

Impossible
or not, it is more usefull.

No, what was *really* useful was all the engineering effort that went
into making sonically transparent CD players and amplifiers available
to all. The 'high end' in 2005 is merely big boys toys and snobbery.

I have not changed my mind. But good point. I am from poor country. I
dont have money. All audio gear what i have i made myself. Except
tweaked CD-Player wich is now broken. Even new laser is in this moment
to expensive to me. Living in better world is my dream.
In start i say "High-End", and Sullivan ask me to define this, but i
resist. I dont give him answer - my error. To me is not neccesary that
good component need to be expensive. And i dont say that are overpriced
componets always better.
But theory wich lead to conclussion that all amplifiers and CD-players
have same sound is crap.

Indeed so - and you won't read anyone saying that.

However, you *will* read people saying that all *well designed* amps
and CD players sound the same - and no one has yet been able to show
that this is not true.

This is reason why i dont want read to much
about DBT, but last 3 days i spend my time to this like never before.
Enough for me. I dont like the way how are results of DBT interpreted
and published. Results of DBT can be only informations, NOT final
answer. Audio DBT is more ideology then science to me, with many holes.

It is however the most sensitive test that we have, and sighted
testing is easily shown to be useless for small differences. DBT is
not 'ideology' at all, which is why it is used in so many branches of
science.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 18 May 2005 00:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

You are right. I was referring to quick-switch, comparative DBT's a la the
ABX promoted here for so long by Arny. And I can agree with you that some
kind of blind test is appropriate to determine, not just differences, but
also preferences and the reasons for those preferences. Unfortunately ,
this is not "measuring thresholds". This is evaluating audio and requires
relaxed listening over periods of some length followed by a rating. It is a
common test technique, but it is not a one-person test. It must be done by
dozens, even hundreds, of people and then statistically compared to
determine difference on rated quality and on specific audio characteristics.
It is the statistical measure of difference that determine whether there is
a difference/preference, but it also measures "what" the perceived
difference/preference is in terms of audio characteristics. Most
importantly, it its a test that allows the emotional response to music
first, and then an evaluation of that response.

Since such a test is impossible for one person to do, and since an ab test
protocol for the home has not yet been developed which is simple enough to
be practical and transparent, I believe for now sighted home listening, even
with its possible error, is superior to using ABX.

This is utter nonsense! Because you think that DBT requires hundreds
of resulytts to verify its accuracy, you go on to suggest that it
*follows* that a *known* flawed test method is superior? Sighted
testing is *useless* for small differences, that can be proved by
*anyone* in a matter of minutes.

You seem to be a person of little respource or determination, as I
have no problem whatever in setting up double-blind tests, with or
without fast switching. If indeed you insist on long listening
periods, then it's even easier, as simple cable-swapping is
appropriate for such a leisurely and relaxed comparison. Just don't
peek!

Of course, such a scheme still won't give results which match your
prejudices, so no doubt you'll come up with another 'problem'. If only
you would put as much energy into actually doing the research, rather
than picking minute flaws in existing and well-practiced techniques.
Pluck first the beam from thine own eye.............


ABX or even direct,
comparative AB testing are two cognitive and left-brain IMO to actual
measure what they profess to measure. Perhaps that will change if we can get
a non-quick-switch, semi-monadic, transparent home ab test protocol nailed
down.

This ain't rocket science, Harry! Just match levels and make it
double-blind, that's all you have to do. Hardly a challenge......

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

snip

Determining the reasons for those preferences is either trivial (ask
the subjects why they preferred something), or extremely difficult (as
in, I don't even know how I'd begin to tackle that one). Even Sean
Olive doesn't claim to have determined WHY people prefer flat speakers
with good dispersion. He only knows that those characteristics
correlate with listener preferences.


I agree, sometimes it is easy to surmise the reason, and sometimes it is
very difficult. "Creativity" in test design is sometimes required to get
insight.

You do this (although you can blow it) by first getting a "quality" rating
of some kind (usually a five point scale, which if statistically different
between the two pieces of gear presumes a sensed differenced.). Then you
ask for a series of carefully constructed subsidiary ratings for various
aspects of the test experience. You can then apply statistical significance
tests to determine which also prove "different" in support of the overall
rating. Then if you are highly skilled at statistics, you can also do
multi-dimensional scaling, which can further help illuminate the reasons for
difference/preferences, in particular what the relative importance (or
unimportance) of various factors were.

Let me give you two possible audio examples, one soft and a bit far out, and
one fairly defined and practical. Assume you are Sony having coming up with
SACD and a new player. You are measuring it against your flagship player at
roughtly the same price point. You use a test hybrid SACD with exactly the
same mix done using the best available technology for both. The SACD wins..
If you had asked "how relaxed were you while listening ?" and found a
significant difference tha highly correclated with overall preference, then
you would know that somehow this unit was putting the listener more at ease
than the other. You might have to do probing with focus groups to get
further insight, and you would have to use your audio and engineering
expertise to surmise what might be causing this, make sure it is intrinsic
to the system, and perhaps decide to use it in your marketing. On the other
hand, if the factor that correlated was "rank your impressions of the
soundstaging" then you would know the unit was preferred mostly because of
better soundstaging (and if you designed the scale or scales right, exactly
how the better soundstage was percceived).

Let me give you a real example from another field. In a past life I ran a
small mid-westen mexican food restaurant chain of about 120 stores. We had
a standard, square-cornered slump block store similar to the old Taco Bells.
We designed a new store that had a much softer adobe look, with rounded
corners and a less plastic interior. Our testing asked people to rate the
stores on a whole host of atrributes (not comparative, just rate them) Then
statistics were applied. It turned out men were less likely to frequent the
new store than the old. But the market researchers went crazy, because they
just couldn't explain it...all the standard measurements they thought
important in a restaurant rated the same, and on a few measures the new
store clearly excelled. But I had thrown in a group of questions relating
to appropriateness of being a place to bring a date, when the would consider
eating there, etc. The "date" question did correlate strongly with the
opposite negative frequency intent...in other words it was a good place to
take a date, a less good place to eat frequently. Using these as clues,
follow up research showed that the typical young male found the stores
somewhat "uncomfortably" feminine (what with the new rounded corners, softer
materials and lighting, etc.) and was also perceived as (again
uncomfortably) "more upscale" even though they knew and indeed their formal
rating showed that the price was no diffrent than in the older stores. This
led to a slight modification of the store design, easy to fix once you found
out what was opertional.

Unfortunately this is not "measuring thresholds".

Whoa, again. Determining difference is most definitely "measuring
thresholds." By definition.


Depends somewhat on the definition. Typically it is measuring differences
in perception and preference. It presumes awareness, but this may be an
unconscious quality based directly on emotion as well as more conscious
awareness as I attempted to show above.

One of the advantages of doing monadic testing is that no time are you
putting the test-taker in the position of "going comparative" with it's
supposed elevation of left brain thinking. The young men rating these
stores were not consciously examining their feelings of masculinity, nor
rationally deterrmining their projected eating frequency. They just gave
answers. It was the statistical comparison that determined the differences
and significance of same which ultimately led to the underlying feelings
masculinity and cultural appropriateness. That is why I think it is a much
better test for something as ethereal as rating equipment in its ability to
reproduce live sound.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 18 May 2005 00:58:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

You are right. I was referring to quick-switch, comparative DBT's a la
the
ABX promoted here for so long by Arny. And I can agree with you that
some
kind of blind test is appropriate to determine, not just differences, but
also preferences and the reasons for those preferences. Unfortunately ,
this is not "measuring thresholds". This is evaluating audio and
requires
relaxed listening over periods of some length followed by a rating. It
is a
common test technique, but it is not a one-person test. It must be done
by
dozens, even hundreds, of people and then statistically compared to
determine difference on rated quality and on specific audio
characteristics.
It is the statistical measure of difference that determine whether there
is
a difference/preference, but it also measures "what" the perceived
difference/preference is in terms of audio characteristics. Most
importantly, it its a test that allows the emotional response to music
first, and then an evaluation of that response.

Since such a test is impossible for one person to do, and since an ab
test
protocol for the home has not yet been developed which is simple enough
to
be practical and transparent, I believe for now sighted home listening,
even
with its possible error, is superior to using ABX.

This is utter nonsense! Because you think that DBT requires hundreds
of resulytts to verify its accuracy, you go on to suggest that it
*follows* that a *known* flawed test method is superior? Sighted
testing is *useless* for small differences, that can be proved by
*anyone* in a matter of minutes.

You seem to be a person of little respource or determination, as I
have no problem whatever in setting up double-blind tests, with or
without fast switching. If indeed you insist on long listening
periods, then it's even easier, as simple cable-swapping is
appropriate for such a leisurely and relaxed comparison. Just don't
peek!

Of course, such a scheme still won't give results which match your
prejudices, so no doubt you'll come up with another 'problem'. If only
you would put as much energy into actually doing the research, rather
than picking minute flaws in existing and well-practiced techniques.
Pluck first the beam from thine own eye.............


I'll ignore all the attacks on my competency and bias by this *most
objective* of all usegroup players.


ABX or even direct,
comparative AB testing are two cognitive and left-brain IMO to actual
measure what they profess to measure. Perhaps that will change if we can
get
a non-quick-switch, semi-monadic, transparent home ab test protocol
nailed
down.

This ain't rocket science, Harry! Just match levels and make it
double-blind, that's all you have to do. Hardly a challenge......

Fine, if you want to do it casually, amateurish, and ... *wrong*.
Not so fine, if you are talking about doing it professionally so you can be
sure the results are as accurate as they can be...but it would still be
*wrong* if it measures the wrong thing because intrinsically it alters the
mode of listening.

I am trying to spell out (based on a research background in general and
audio logic in particular) the kind of test needed to verify that the test
doesn't get in the way of what it attempts to measure. Not hard to
understand, just hard to do. But until it is done, the test you want us to
use is unproven and suspect at best and in error at worst.

What is the sense of doing a test if you don't know that it measures the
thing it purports to measure? I'd rather spend my time and energy trying to
help somebody (the group, Stereophile, somebody) do the work necessary to
determine what type of test measures most accurately *what we want to
measure .... proficiency in playing music with realism*.

"I am reminded of what the mathematician at HE2005 said about engineers --
they are also too busy to get to the end to bother to examine the
underlying
premises. I simply and profoundly disagree, and have indicated why. You
are not buying. I can't see that this discussion has to go any further."

The subjective enterprise cann't demonstrate even it's most basic
assumptions. The above same cuts both ways in all points. It depends on
what one places at the spot of underlying etc. and over looks in haste to
support an end. For each and every aspect that is said to be critical
that some amp audibly has and others don't then spotting same should be
easy to pick, you just don't get to know which is active but in every
other aspect you wish are free to identify the amp you think holds those
aspects. It ain't rocket science, nor does being a math person prove an
obstical; it's just a listening alone test. In haste to get to the end
that the subjective enterprise is valid, the underlying undemonstrated
assumption is made that the enterprise can not have such a critical and
obvious flaw, the failure to demonstrate the validity of the enterprise
must lie in the test which continiously fails to confirm. So too is the
automatic and oft repeated haste of astrology and esp which too "know"
they are right and are victums to being validated by testing but failing
same are only speculation. When faced with "might be" and demonstrated
every day in the whole of human testing why should we buy the pig in the
poke?

Get two amps, one said to have any number of audible effects and another
said to clearly lack them. Listen as long as you like using the exact
context and gear of your choice to either in any order or none at all to
really nail down your conclusion. Then have someone choose one and add
only a cloth over the connections which might reveal which amp is active
and pronounce which it is, based squarely on what was so very obvious that
caused you to pick the obviously contrasting amps in the first place and
which you so clearly confirmed just minutes before. No comparson need be
made. A random series, still with no comparison amps is done with each
amp ending up with the same number of trial attempts. If the differences
reside in the gear the results will jump right off the paper on which the
results were recorded. No left brain or right brain or any other
objections of the day, just a recreation of your experience; you just
don't get to know which amp is active.

All of the many objections are at this point conjecture and must in
themselves be shown to be confounding elements before one need design a
test to control for them. Just do the test.

"Harry Lavo" wrote

What is the sense of doing a test if you don't know that it measures the
thing it purports to measure? I'd rather spend my time and energy trying
to
help somebody (the group, Stereophile, somebody) do the work necessary to
determine what type of test measures most accurately *what we want to
measure .... proficiency in playing music with realism*.

What's the sense in doing that since we all hear and listen differently?

wrote in message ...
Get two amps, one said to have any number of audible effects and another
said to clearly lack them. Listen as long as you like using the exact
context and gear of your choice to either in any order or none at all to
really nail down your conclusion. Then have someone choose one and add
only a cloth over the connections which might reveal which amp is active
and pronounce which it is, based squarely on what was so very obvious that
caused you to pick the obviously contrasting amps in the first place and
which you so clearly confirmed just minutes before. No comparson need be
made. A random series, still with no comparison amps is done with each
amp ending up with the same number of trial attempts. If the differences
reside in the gear the results will jump right off the paper on which the
results were recorded. No left brain or right brain or any other
objections of the day, just a recreation of your experience; you just
don't get to know which amp is active.

All of the many objections are at this point conjecture and must in
themselves be shown to be confounding elements before one need design a
test to control for them. Just do the test.

This is a comparative test, and if such testing "kills" the right brain/Type
I response than it gives erroneous results, not matter how much listening
preceeds it. Until that possibility is tested and put to rest (and there is
reason to believe it may be valid) then such testing is not only foolish but
potentially misleading.

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote

What is the sense of doing a test if you don't know that it measures the
thing it purports to measure? I'd rather spend my time and energy
trying
to
help somebody (the group, Stereophile, somebody) do the work necessary
to
determine what type of test measures most accurately *what we want to
measure .... proficiency in playing music with realism*.

What's the sense in doing that since we all hear and listen differently?

The issue, Norm, is "how do we determine the underlying truth...is there a
difference of isn't there?". We can only do that by using the best
technique for the taks, the one least likely to get in the way of recording
the full impact of the musical test on the testee. That is monadic
testing...i.e. listen for an extended period, completely relaxed...then rate
the event. Ideally don't even know what is being tested. Then rely on
statistics to tell you whether or not the two devices under test are
different or not. That is not a single person test...it requires a bunch of
people...dozens at least, preferably several hundred...and they are needed
as well to determine "truth" in the sense of being broader than one person.

Then, once we have that measure, you have a standard to test single-person
blind AB testing, ABX, ABC/hr, etc. against to see if they give the same
results, measured over a bunch of people as well. And then, only if they
do, can they be used as a definitive test for an individual person with any
validity. That work has not been done...by Arny nor by anybody else in
audio so far as I can tell.

wrote in message ...
Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
the speakers inthe room.

I must say there is little discussion of the above 3 items that "really do
make a difference". I agree that they are the 3 critical items (although the
whole room treatment is critical, not just the placement of speakers), but
90% of the traffic is subjectivist v objectivist, over and over and over and
over.....

and 90% of the few threads on speaker and recording are subjectivist /
sighted, too.

I'd love to hear from someone or see references to actual distortion
measurements of speakers, of various harmonics and intermod dist.


.....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.

nowater wrote:
wrote in message ...
Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
the speakers inthe room.

I must say there is little discussion of the above 3 items that "really do
make a difference". I agree that they are the 3 critical items (although the
whole room treatment is critical, not just the placement of speakers),

Agreed. I was trying to be succinct.

but
90% of the traffic is subjectivist v objectivist, over and over and over and
over.....

Yeah. I wish the subjectivists would give it a rest. :-)

and 90% of the few threads on speaker and recording are subjectivist /
sighted, too.

It's well-nigh impossible for amateurs to do blind evaluations of
speakers. Unless you work for Harman or a Canadian manufacturer,
sighted subjective evaluations are all you've got.

I'd love to hear from someone or see references to actual distortion
measurements of speakers, of various harmonics and intermod dist.

Good sources for speaker measurements include:

www.stereophile.com (Ignore the reviews themselves and go straight to
John Atkinson's measurements.)

www.soundstageav.com/avreviews_speakers.html (The ones labeled NRC have
measurements.)

www.soundandvisionmag.com (Tests by Tom Nousaine accompany speaker
reviews.)

www.theaudiocritic.com (Very little so far, and full site access costs
$10.)

....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.

I don't know of anybody who actually measures recordings.

bob
____________

"Further carefully-conducted blind tests will be necessary
if these conclusions are felt to be in error."

--Stanley P. Lip****z

"nowater" wrote in message
...
....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.


Actually not much of a problem with some available software for
you to investigate what is on CD's or DVD's with your home PC.

Many popular CD's only have average to peak levels of around
15 dB. Some don't have any more dynamic range than that.
Noise floors are almost never more than 70 dB down from max level
in the few dozen I have looked at this way. In general objectively,
seems few if any recordings have needs exceeding the capability
of your basic CD format. Actually few even exercise the CD format
very much.

Also can be instructive to play with compression, expansion and
other alterations of recordings with CoolEdit (now Adobe Audition)
or similar programs. Frequency response tilts are enlightening too.
Results can be very surprising. Such as finding a little compression
often seems to enhance the subjective dynamic range. While expansion
leads to a lifeless low energy sound that is subjectively 'compressed'.
Or that slight frequency cuts in the high frequencies sound like a boost
of the low end or vice versa.

Maybe someone can suggest a bit of software with these capabilities
that is less costly than Adobe Audition has become.

Dennis