Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Lee said:
I took a selection of spices that were all in the same type of bottle, closed my eyes, shuffled the bottles around, and opened and sniffed them one by one, trying to identify the spice by name. I was sure I could do it but was quite amazed to discover that I couldn't do it at all. IIRC the limit is 3 scents, after that the nose gets overloaded. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Mark DeBellis wrote: "Buster Mudd" wrote: Because "hearing" is a cognitive process; it takes place in the brain, not in the ear. So if your brain tells you you didn't hear it, even if soundwaves did strike your eardrum...and even (!) if at an earlier time your brain told you that you did hear it...for all intents & purposes, you didn't hear it. Saying "I heard it" is only useful if you can access the perception in order to make subsequent discriminations. I agree with the basic idea that perception is something that influences behavior, but why does the behavior have to be restricted to comparison and identification? It doesn't. You can easily do a DBT as, say, a preference test. If the subject reports the same preference at a statistically significant rate, we can assume that the two are different. But at the current level of validation, you can't be sure the test allows you to actually perceive some of the differences that might factor into a longer-term preference. Suppose a listener gives higher approval ratings to one set of (blind) stimuli than another, without ever trying to say which stimuli were the same and which were different. This would be an influence on behavior, but of a weaker sort than is required by the "can you reliably identify" type of test. There are cases all the time when people perceive things and then forget them. At which point any information they may have gleaned from perceiving that thing is lost to them. Hence, the distinction between whether they actually perceived it & then forgot it, or never perceived it in the first place, is moot. Not if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task. But it isn't, because of our short aural memory for partial loudness differences. This assumes all aural differences are a function of loudness in one form or another. Some of us feel otherwise and would like to see this underlying premises actually validated with regard to phase differences, or harmonic structure differences, or impulse response differences, or frequency coherence throughout a dynamic volume change. In other words, is it volume, or is it a more complex brain processing within a high-complex of aural stimulae. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
"Buster Mudd" wrote: Hence, the distinction between whether they actually perceived it & then forgot it, or never perceived it in the first place, is moot. Not if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task. How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that someone was not conscious of that something? How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that someone to perform a task, any task? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
OK, is this the idea.
We want to prove that two sources provide the same information to the listener in the context of ordinary use. We appeal now to the following Principle: If two sources provide the same information in ordinary use, then in a test in which small, corresponding portions are compared, the listener will not be able to discriminate them. In particular, the type of discrimination task is the following: on any trial, two short excerpts are played, either both from the same source (a repetition) or from different sources, and the listener has to say if they're from the same or different sources, and he passes the test if he says same or different better than chance. Two observations. First of all, in a test like this there is plenty of information coming from either source that may not make it to the listener, such as the "temporally extended" properties I have mentioned. (Maybe that's obvious.) The thing is, the Principle says that that's OK because those properties have a certain dependence relation on the, as it were, "atomic" properties that get compared in such a test. The relation is, no difference in information presented unless there is a difference in atomic properties. In other words, information "supervenes" on atomic properties. It does so even if it does not *consist* exclusively in atomic properties (because, when I hear the Brahmsian style of a recorded performance, that is not any property of a short snippet). (To put the Principle better, information supervenes on *discernible* atomic properties.) Second, what is key here is the nature of the test. If I am being asked whether to say A and B are the same or different, that is one thing. But if I am trying to say which source a given sample is coming from, where these have been labelled in advance (like SACD or CD), that is a different task. And the results might not be the same. Moreover, there might be information of the temporally extended sort that is available to me when I listen to longer excerpts but which are not directly picked up in any test. This would include quick-switch testing as well as comparison of longer excerpts. It would not be directly picked up in quick-switch testing because I wouldn't hear long-enough excerpts to perceive the temporally extended property; it would elude comparison of longer excerpts if the information fails to be kept in memory in a way that permits long-term comparison. That was my initial worry. That worry is allayed to some extent by the existence of "same/different" testing (if that testing is sensitive to things on which said information supervenes), but my point is that if the question is "Was that SACD or CD?" then the result is not a valid test. The failure to get a correct answer better than chance does not prove anything. It makes a big difference what the task is. Make sense? Mark |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... On 22 Jun 2005 03:05:31 GMT, wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: ... if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task. But it isn't, because of our short aural memory for partial loudness differences. Doesn't it follow from what you say that musical form can make no difference? When I am listening to Theme B, it makes no difference what the character of Theme A was, what motives made it up, and so on. If it doesn't follow from what you say, why not? If this is what psychoacoustics teaches us, I'm moving to Kansas! Mark Better order the moving van....Bob didn't warn me and I hit the student rush! :-) Seriously, this is what the proponents of quick-switch, comparative testing *believe* psychoacoustics teaches us. However, as recent experience in this newsgroup has shown, when they give us a specific reference, which is rare, it turns out to have much more complex and nuanced information than is proposed, some of which supports the more complex issues raised here. Then we are told we can't possibly understand the concepts in these books unless we devote a full course of study (and preferably a liftetime) to them. Is this coming from neuropsychologists or neurophysisists or audiologists? No, it is coming from folks no more or less "literate" in these areas than ourselves. Ain't newsgroups wonderful? :-) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
OK now the auditory case. There is a signal that gets louder, and I can hear the difference between that and a signal of constant loudness. The principle says that I can do this only if I can hear the difference in loudness between short corresponding portions. Seems plausible ... and if the portions get to be too short then would reliability go down, No. There is only one point at which the volume of the two passages is identical, so unless you are listening at exactly that point, and only that point, the two are going to sound different to you, no matter how short the samples are. So unless you're extremely unlucky in your choice of snippets to compare, you'll have no trouble discerning the difference. And since any good listening test involving musical passages allows the subject to control the switch, you'll have no trouble finding other portions of the passage where the differences are obvious. Now, you're going to ask, Okay, but what if I'm only given the short snippet where the levels are the same? In that case, you will hear no difference. But if that's all you're given, then you can't extrapolate from that to the remainder of the signal. A listening test is only valid for what you're listening to. just as in the visual case? Does it matter how the short portions are "juxtaposed"? Separated by silence or one followed continously by the other? A silence of more than a few seconds (maybe even less) will doom the test. bob |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
OK, is this the idea. We want to prove that two sources provide the same information to the listener in the context of ordinary use. We appeal now to the following Principle: If two sources provide the same information in ordinary use, then in a test in which small, corresponding portions are compared, the listener will not be able to discriminate them. In particular, the type of discrimination task is the following: on any trial, two short excerpts are played, either both from the same source (a repetition) or from different sources, and the listener has to say if they're from the same or different sources, and he passes the test if he says same or different better than chance. Two observations. First of all, in a test like this there is plenty of information coming from either source that may not make it to the listener, No, there isn't. The only information coming to the listener is the information that's actually coming to the listener. If you're comparing two short snippets, that's all you're comparing, and you can't extrapolate from that to anything that isn't part of the test. Since the subject of this thread is "validity of audio tests," let me be clear: Listening tests are valid for what you're listening to. They can't tell you anything about what you're not listening to. So please give up this sophistry. bob |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 03:05:31 GMT, wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: ... if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task. But it isn't, because of our short aural memory for partial loudness differences. Doesn't it follow from what you say that musical form can make no difference? When I am listening to Theme B, it makes no difference what the character of Theme A was, what motives made it up, and so on. If it doesn't follow from what you say, why not? The difference between two themes is not a partial loudness difference! Do you even know what a partial loudness difference is? I thought I was arguing with someone who at least had a rudimentary understanding of what he was talking about. If this is what psychoacoustics teaches us, I'm moving to Kansas! I'd say you're already there in spirit. bob |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Jun 2005 00:09:36 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: "Buster Mudd" wrote: Hence, the distinction between whether they actually perceived it & then forgot it, or never perceived it in the first place, is moot. Not if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task. How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that someone was not conscious of that something? How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that someone to perform a task, any task? Excellent question. I would say a statement like that is confirmed if it is part of the best explanation we have of the data, in other words, part of the best psychological theory we have. (I use the term "confirmed," not proved, because confirmation is never final or certain.) For psychology, the data consists of behavior, as well as other things that are observed. Psychologists postulate unconscious representation all the time. You don't have to be conscious of something in order to have perceived it; so that is not a necessary criterion. If you are saying, if a certain hypothesis about somebody's mental states has no implications whatever for behavior then it has no real content, I basically agree with that. But I think that to suppose that someone can perceive something and then not have a memory of it does not run afoul of that principle, so long as there are *some* connections with behavior. Here is an everyday example. Did I say "Unconscious representation is postulated by psychologists," or "Psychologists postulate unconscious representation," in the first sentence of the second paragraph above? You remember that I said something like that but if you are like me you have to go back and check the formulation to see which exactly it was. But surely you parsed the sentence when you read it earlier and had some mental representation of its syntax, though you did not retain a memory of the exact formulation. (The reasons for thinking you parsed the sentence are of a general natu you regularly comprehend what you read; how could that happen if you did not regularly parse the sentences?) What I am supposing is going on with music is something along these lines. Mark |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
I was merely observing that if your point about auditory memory refutes
my claim, as you seem to intend it, then much will follow about the futility of musical form. But really, it's OK. I think I answered my own question, along lines I have reported in other posts. If anyone cares to make a substantive response to them, to confirm or correct, that will be appreciated. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
An auditory example would be tempo. Suppose I am listening to two sources, where the only difference is that one of them has a speed of 1.01 times the other. If I listen to short excerpts any difference is below the just-noticeable-difference, but if the whole example is the Ring cycle, I will notice that one finishes before dark and the other doesn't, I get hungry during one but not the other, etc. So even if quick-switch tests, on balance, are the most sensitive, that doesn't mean there can't be things out there that don't get caught in their net (though they may be detectable in other ways). To come back to the SACD/CD example, my concern is whether, even if the quick-switch test were a "null," there could be differences that the test does not do a good job of proving the existence of. Rather than feel assured that science tells us there could not be such differences, it seems to me pretty apparent that every test has its limitations. Sound plausible? You can't do a "quick switch" test with two sources that run at different speeds because you can't synchronize them, which would be a dead giveaway in itself, so that is a bad example. If you want to use that example, you will have to listen first to one, then the other, in its entirety, then decide if the speed difference is audible. If so, then do a blind series, listening to a known version, then to a randomly chosen one, and decide whether it is the same or different. In this manner you will eventually arrive at a number for a speed differential that is at the audible threshold. That is the basic idea of how audio research is done. You may find that speed differences of 1.01 will be inaudible to most, but audible to some with perfect pitch. If this is interesting enough a question for you, then do the research and report it. Gary Eickmeier |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Mark DeBellis wrote: OK now the auditory case. There is a signal that gets louder, and I can hear the difference between that and a signal of constant loudness. The principle says that I can do this only if I can hear the difference in loudness between short corresponding portions. Seems plausible ... and if the portions get to be too short then would reliability go down, No. There is only one point at which the volume of the two passages is identical, so unless you are listening at exactly that point, and only that point, the two are going to sound different to you, no matter how short the samples are. So unless you're extremely unlucky in your choice of snippets to compare, you'll have no trouble discerning the difference. And since any good listening test involving musical passages allows the subject to control the switch, you'll have no trouble finding other portions of the passage where the differences are obvious. Now, you're going to ask, Okay, but what if I'm only given the short snippet where the levels are the same? In that case, you will hear no difference. But if that's all you're given, then you can't extrapolate from that to the remainder of the signal. A listening test is only valid for what you're listening to. Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet, qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and post-evaluation. That has never been done to verify that such is the case. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Jun 2005 03:30:50 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message ... On 22 Jun 2005 03:05:31 GMT, wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: ... if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task. But it isn't, because of our short aural memory for partial loudness differences. Doesn't it follow from what you say that musical form can make no difference? When I am listening to Theme B, it makes no difference what the character of Theme A was, what motives made it up, and so on. If it doesn't follow from what you say, why not? If this is what psychoacoustics teaches us, I'm moving to Kansas! Mark Better order the moving van....Bob didn't warn me and I hit the student rush! :-) Seriously, this is what the proponents of quick-switch, comparative testing *believe* psychoacoustics teaches us. However, as recent experience in this newsgroup has shown, when they give us a specific reference, which is rare, it turns out to have much more complex and nuanced information than is proposed, some of which supports the more complex issues raised here. Then we are told we can't possibly understand the concepts in these books unless we devote a full course of study (and preferably a liftetime) to them. Is this coming from neuropsychologists or neurophysisists or audiologists? No, it is coming from folks no more or less "literate" in these areas than ourselves. Ain't newsgroups wonderful? :-) Exactamundo. The research may have not been intended to answer certain questions, so it can't be looked to for definitive answers about them. And it would be circular to argue that those questions don't matter because everything that's relevant has already been treated by science. But look, whatever anyone thinks of my original question or subsequent meanderings, I think it is apparent that there is a need to explain better, to non-experts like me, how audio tests work, in the sense of what they demonstrate and how they demonstrate it, what their logic and rationale are, what the structure of the reasoning is that leads from data to conclusions. I started with what seemed to me a prima facie problem about the SACD/CD test I undertook. It seemed to me there was a reason to think that the outcome of that particular test fails to demonstrate that there is no difference between what I hear in SACD and what I hear in CD (and hence that there is no sonic advantage to SACD). If someone wants to tell me that the test does demonstrate that, then I would be interested to know why what I think is a reason, an obstacle, is not in fact a good reason. My own assessment of this is that I performed the wrong kind of test, and this is worth pointing out because it is very easy to assume that the test does demonstrate said conclusion, since it is very easy not to notice the difference between that test and other, better tests. There is an initial plausibility to the idea that the failure to identify SACD vs. CD means that one can't sound better than the other. But I think that plausibility is illusory and betrays a lack of clarity, from which I was certainly not myself immune, about what the test really demonstrates and why. Mark |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Mark DeBellis wrote: OK now the auditory case. There is a signal that gets louder, and I can hear the difference between that and a signal of constant loudness. The principle says that I can do this only if I can hear the difference in loudness between short corresponding portions. Seems plausible ... and if the portions get to be too short then would reliability go down, No. There is only one point at which the volume of the two passages is identical, so unless you are listening at exactly that point, and only that point, the two are going to sound different to you, no matter how short the samples are. So unless you're extremely unlucky in your choice of snippets to compare, you'll have no trouble discerning the difference. And since any good listening test involving musical passages allows the subject to control the switch, you'll have no trouble finding other portions of the passage where the differences are obvious. Now, you're going to ask, Okay, but what if I'm only given the short snippet where the levels are the same? In that case, you will hear no difference. But if that's all you're given, then you can't extrapolate from that to the remainder of the signal. A listening test is only valid for what you're listening to. Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet, qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and post-evaluation. It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently. But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary. bob |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Exactamundo. The research may have not been intended to answer certain questions, so it can't be looked to for definitive answers about them. But the research was intended to answer exactly the questions you are asking. If you want to know how to determine whether two things sound different, there are certain tests that are known to be reliable for doing this. The only reason you are arguing this is that you don't like what those tests tell you. I'm sorry we can't rearrange the laws of the physical universe to your wishes, but we can't. And it would be circular to argue that those questions don't matter because everything that's relevant has already been treated by science. But look, whatever anyone thinks of my original question or subsequent meanderings, I think it is apparent that there is a need to explain better, to non-experts like me, how audio tests work, in the sense of what they demonstrate and how they demonstrate it, what their logic and rationale are, what the structure of the reasoning is that leads from data to conclusions. You can't understand any of this unless you have a decent grasp of the basics of psychoacoustics and the physics of sound, which your recent posts indicate that you do not have. So the very first thing you should do is pick up a textbook or two actually read the things. Then you'll be able to pose informed questions, instead of throwing up uninformed speculation. I started with what seemed to me a prima facie problem about the SACD/CD test I undertook. Yeah, it didn't give you the result you wanted. It seemed to me there was a reason to think that the outcome of that particular test fails to demonstrate that there is no difference between what I hear in SACD and what I hear in CD (and hence that there is no sonic advantage to SACD). NO test can demonstrate that there is no difference. Any such test has one of two possible outcomes: 1) it can demonstrate that there IS a difference; 2) it can fail to determine whether there is or is not a difference. Of course, if you keep getting result #2, that should tell you something. (This, by the way, is another very basic concept which you have not yet grasped. I don't point this out to belittle you, but to indicate further that your lack of background knowledge is hindering your ability to understand what people are saying to you. So please take my advice and read up a little.) If someone wants to tell me that the test does demonstrate that, then I would be interested to know why what I think is a reason, an obstacle, is not in fact a good reason. I believe several people explained why your reasoning was faulty. Rather than engage them, you've simply persisted in posting the same question over and over again. My own assessment of this is that I performed the wrong kind of test, and this is worth pointing out because it is very easy to assume that the test does demonstrate said conclusion, since it is very easy not to notice the difference between that test and other, better tests. There is an initial plausibility to the idea that the failure to identify SACD vs. CD means that one can't sound better than the other. But I think that plausibility is illusory and betrays a lack of clarity, from which I was certainly not myself immune, about what the test really demonstrates and why. The lack of clarity is entirely yours. I've suggested a remedy. bob |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... Mark DeBellis wrote: OK now the auditory case. There is a signal that gets louder, and I can hear the difference between that and a signal of constant loudness. The principle says that I can do this only if I can hear the difference in loudness between short corresponding portions. Seems plausible ... and if the portions get to be too short then would reliability go down, No. There is only one point at which the volume of the two passages is identical, so unless you are listening at exactly that point, and only that point, the two are going to sound different to you, no matter how short the samples are. So unless you're extremely unlucky in your choice of snippets to compare, you'll have no trouble discerning the difference. And since any good listening test involving musical passages allows the subject to control the switch, you'll have no trouble finding other portions of the passage where the differences are obvious. Now, you're going to ask, Okay, but what if I'm only given the short snippet where the levels are the same? In that case, you will hear no difference. But if that's all you're given, then you can't extrapolate from that to the remainder of the signal. A listening test is only valid for what you're listening to. Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet, qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and post-evaluation. It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently. But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary. Sure it presumes exactly what I mentioned. You are presuming that if something "disappears" when the time interval is lengthened, then it is not important. You have no evidence for this whatsoever unless you can show that the results of the short snippet, quick-switch test give the same results as a longer-term, monadic, cross-population, post-listening-analysis test. Such a test does not rely on one person's aural memory; instead it measures response to the full longer term set of stimulae across the population, and uses statistics to determine signifcant difference or lack of same. Yet this test more closely duplicates the actual listening conditions under which people use the equipment and listen to the music. If the quick-switch, snippet test duplicates the results within reason, then fine, you've got a winner. But if it doesn't, then the basic assumption that the test is valid for the open-ended evaluation of musical reproduction has been an error, and the testing is worthless for this purpose. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 23 Jun 2005 00:09:36 GMT, "Buster Mudd" wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: "Buster Mudd" wrote: Hence, the distinction between whether they actually perceived it & then forgot it, or never perceived it in the first place, is moot. Not if the information is still doing work somewhere in your cognitive economy, even though it can't be brought to consciousness, or is not specific enough to enable one to perform the identification task. How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that someone was not conscious of that something? How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that someone to perform a task, any task? Excellent question. I would say a statement like that is confirmed if it is part of the best explanation we have of the data, in other words, part of the best psychological theory we have. But that sounds suspiciously like "Philosopher's Syndrome": mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity. I'm under the impression that no self-respecting scientist would ever claim they'd "confirmed" anything if it is simply the best explanation they have of the data. All they've done is "postulated" a theory or "presumed" a solution, which they would then seek to "confirm" via reproduceable experiment. For psychology, the data consists of behavior, as well as other things that are observed. Psychologists postulate unconscious representation all the time. You don't have to be conscious of something in order to have perceived it; so that is not a necessary criterion. But in order for a psychologist to postulate unconscious representation they need to observe something in a subject's behavior that suggests that Perceived-But-Not-Brought-To-Consciousness thing *was* affecting the subject's cognitive economy. This gets right back to my previous question: How would you go about *proving* (confirming? demonstrating?) that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that someone to perform a task? Relying on the "it happens all the time so why shouldn't it be happening now" school of philosophy is extremely suspect. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Mark, I've noticed a few of your posts in this thread have been
attempting to discuss auditory memory as it applies to musical themes, motifs, and forms...whereas most of the other folks here have been responding as if the discussion were about auditory memory as it applies to identifying sonic differences between audio components. Intuitively (for whatever *that's* worth!) it strikes me that there's a fundamental difference between these two types of auditory memories that may explain the obstacles to understanding one another: There is a certain amount of "content" in a musical composition that is objectively verifiable: e.g., Theme B is an inversion of Theme A, or, this passage is in the relative minor key of the opening statement, etc. These types of information can be easily confirmed by anyone with a copy of the score. And these are examples of the sort of content that can most definitely be percieved subconciously but have an affect on one's subsequent perception of a musical passage. I don't think anyone would disagree that this type of auditory memory exists; it's the entire basis upon which Western Art Music was founded! But the whole point of performing a valid audio test to determine whether or not there exists a difference between two audio components is to find out if there *is* any objectively verifiable "content". We're not asking whether or not the subject has retained a memory (conciously or otherwise) of This Thing; we're performing these tests to first determine whether or not This Thing even exists. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Mark DeBellis wrote: snip I started with what seemed to me a prima facie problem about the SACD/CD test I undertook. Yeah, it didn't give you the result you wanted. It seemed to me there was a reason to think that the outcome of that particular test fails to demonstrate that there is no difference between what I hear in SACD and what I hear in CD (and hence that there is no sonic advantage to SACD). NO test can demonstrate that there is no difference. Any such test has one of two possible outcomes: 1) it can demonstrate that there IS a difference; 2) it can fail to determine whether there is or is not a difference. Of course, if you keep getting result #2, that should tell you something. Yes, either the test is wrong or you need more trials. :-) snip |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet, qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and post-evaluation. It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently. But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary. Sure it presumes exactly what I mentioned. You are presuming that if something "disappears" when the time interval is lengthened, then it is not important. Not only am I not presuming this, but I have never said that *anything* disappears. Must you misrepresent what I say in order to argue with me? You have no evidence for this whatsoever unless you can show that the results of the short snippet, quick-switch test give the same results as a longer-term, monadic, cross-population, post-listening-analysis test. Why in the world should I have to show that a listening test commonly used by the leading experts in the field gives the same results as one that has never, ever been used to test whether two sounds are audibly different? That's preposterous. It seems to me that the burden of proof rests with you. Show us that your "test" even works at all. Such a test does not rely on one person's aural memory; Of course it does. You listen to a sample. Then you answer a few questions about your impressions of that sample. How do you remember what your impressions were? That's aural memory, Harry. And it works the same in your "test" as in the real ones. bob |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet, qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and post-evaluation. It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently. But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary. Sure it presumes exactly what I mentioned. You are presuming that if something "disappears" when the time interval is lengthened, then it is not important. Not only am I not presuming this, but I have never said that *anything* disappears. Must you misrepresent what I say in order to argue with me? I'm sorry, but the entire gist of your response has been to this effect. Othes here can judge your disclaimer for themselves. You have no evidence for this whatsoever unless you can show that the results of the short snippet, quick-switch test give the same results as a longer-term, monadic, cross-population, post-listening-analysis test. Why in the world should I have to show that a listening test commonly used by the leading experts in the field gives the same results as one that has never, ever been used to test whether two sounds are audibly different? That's preposterous. It seems to me that the burden of proof rests with you. Show us that your "test" even works at all. My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many fields. The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the information Harmon Kardon's current use of it. It is much less controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of normal listening patterns. The only thing one might fault it for is sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people. Such a test does not rely on one person's aural memory; Of course it does. You listen to a sample. Then you answer a few questions about your impressions of that sample. How do you remember what your impressions were? That's aural memory, Harry. And it works the same in your "test" as in the real ones. That is not aural memory, in the sense that you need it in an ABX test. That is a recall of total impression, involving the brain and the emotions. And that kind of memory is *very* recallable. It is also subjective. But that is how we respond to and understand music (and musical reproduction). It is objectified via the use of statistics. You don't object to that use, do you? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many fields. But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change that. The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the information Harmon Kardon's current use of it. Not for difference. It is much less controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of normal listening patterns. ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so. The only thing one might fault it for is sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people. As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests? bob |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many fields. But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change that. Absolutely it is used to test difference. If it doesn't measure statistically significant, the difference hypothesis is not supported. Try telling a drug company it doesn't measure difference from a placebo! One of its strengths is that it goes beyond difference to get at where and how and why there is a difference. But only if there is a statistical difference. The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the information Harmon Kardon's current use of it. Not for difference. Of course for difference. They are profiling speakers against the profile of know reference speakers. If there is no statistical difference, any differences in profile are useless (in a scientific sense). Of course, the Harmon people may set a lower statistical standard for such testing because they find even directional information helpful. But that is always a standard development dilemma. It is much less controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of normal listening patterns. ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so. Once again, name calling, however subtle in nature. I am not anti-science. I am against bad science parading as good science. The only thing one might fault it for is sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people. As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests? Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a difference? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Jun 2005 01:09:45 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
wrote: You can't do a "quick switch" test with two sources that run at different speeds because you can't synchronize them, which would be a dead giveaway in itself, so that is a bad example. I don't see why it would be impossible to synchronize them if they are both files on your computer and there is a program that, when you switch back and forth, points you to the right place in the other file. If on the other hand playback is continuous for either source and it has to be started once and for all, then, yes, it would be impossible to synchronize them. If you want to use that example, you will have to listen first to one, then the other, in its entirety, then decide if the speed difference is audible. If so, then do a blind series, listening to a known version, then to a randomly chosen one, and decide whether it is the same or different. In this manner you will eventually arrive at a number for a speed differential that is at the audible threshold. That is the basic idea of how audio research is done. You may find that speed differences of 1.01 will be inaudible to most, but audible to some with perfect pitch. If this is interesting enough a question for you, then do the research and report it. Thanks, that is a helpful explanation. But I am not an audio researcher, just someone who is trying to understand what the research and the debates are about. Mark |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Jun 2005 02:28:36 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: On 23 Jun 2005 00:09:36 GMT, "Buster Mudd" wrote: How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that someone was not conscious of that something? How would you go about *proving* that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that someone to perform a task, any task? Excellent question. I would say a statement like that is confirmed if it is part of the best explanation we have of the data, in other words, part of the best psychological theory we have. But that sounds suspiciously like "Philosopher's Syndrome": mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity. I'm under the impression that no self-respecting scientist would ever claim they'd "confirmed" anything if it is simply the best explanation they have of the data. All they've done is "postulated" a theory or "presumed" a solution, which they would then seek to "confirm" via reproduceable experiment. I don't think we basically disagree, though maybe our terminology is different. A theory's having the status of being the best explanation is not prior to experiment. The data include the results of experiments. And confirmation is always provisional, always open to revision by further observations. (In addition to the excellent book you have mentioned already, I would add to the mix The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper, which is relevant to these particular points.) For psychology, the data consists of behavior, as well as other things that are observed. Psychologists postulate unconscious representation all the time. You don't have to be conscious of something in order to have perceived it; so that is not a necessary criterion. But in order for a psychologist to postulate unconscious representation they need to observe something in a subject's behavior that suggests that Perceived-But-Not-Brought-To-Consciousness thing *was* affecting the subject's cognitive economy. This gets right back to my previous question: How would you go about *proving* (confirming? demonstrating?) that something was in someone's "cognitive economy" if that something could not enable that someone to perform a task? Well, just as you say, by observing behavior that, together with everything else that is observed, is best explained by that hypothesis, in the context of a larger theory. If by a "task" you mean a behavior that constitutes a "crucial experiment"--if we see the behavior then we have conclusively proved the hypothesis, and if we do not then we have conclusively refuted it--then I think normally there isn't any such thing. A theory in psychology, like any theory, "faces the tribunal of experience" as a whole, not statement by statement (Quine, Duhem). Confirmation in science is holistic. Mark |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Jun 2005 02:29:34 GMT, "Buster Mudd"
wrote: Mark, I've noticed a few of your posts in this thread have been attempting to discuss auditory memory as it applies to musical themes, motifs, and forms...whereas most of the other folks here have been responding as if the discussion were about auditory memory as it applies to identifying sonic differences between audio components. Intuitively (for whatever *that's* worth!) it strikes me that there's a fundamental difference between these two types of auditory memories that may explain the obstacles to understanding one another: There is a certain amount of "content" in a musical composition that is objectively verifiable: e.g., Theme B is an inversion of Theme A, or, this passage is in the relative minor key of the opening statement, etc. These types of information can be easily confirmed by anyone with a copy of the score. And these are examples of the sort of content that can most definitely be percieved subconciously but have an affect on one's subsequent perception of a musical passage. I don't think anyone would disagree that this type of auditory memory exists; it's the entire basis upon which Western Art Music was founded! But the whole point of performing a valid audio test to determine whether or not there exists a difference between two audio components is to find out if there *is* any objectively verifiable "content". We're not asking whether or not the subject has retained a memory (conciously or otherwise) of This Thing; we're performing these tests to first determine whether or not This Thing even exists. Hi Buster, that's interesting. What do you think the relation is between these two types of auditory memory? I am not sure whether to read you as saying that the things being verified by audio tests are the same things you refer to in the previous paragraph (musical "content") or different kinds of things. Mark |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
The question that interests me now is whether the implications of an
identification ("Was that SACD or CD?") test need be the same as those of a discrimination ("Are A and B the same or different?") test. Does the research show, in particular, that an identification test (the kind I undertook) is among the kinds of tests that are reliable for determining whether two sources sound different? Mark |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many fields. But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change that. Absolutely it is used to test difference. If it doesn't measure statistically significant, the difference hypothesis is not supported. Try telling a drug company it doesn't measure difference from a placebo! One of its strengths is that it goes beyond difference to get at where and how and why there is a difference. But only if there is a statistical difference. The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the information Harmon Kardon's current use of it. Not for difference. Of course for difference. They are profiling speakers against the profile of know reference speakers. If there is no statistical difference, any differences in profile are useless (in a scientific sense). Of course, the Harmon people may set a lower statistical standard for such testing because they find even directional information helpful. But that is always a standard development dilemma. It is much less controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of normal listening patterns. ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so. Once again, name calling, however subtle in nature. I am not anti-science. I am against bad science parading as good science. The only thing one might fault it for is sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people. As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests? Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a difference? Your continued insistance that 'loudness' and 'partial loudness' are the same (because you apparently continue to refuse to study and therefore understand the subject) really does not do your 'cause' any good whatsoever. If you want to debunk a theory, you need to know what the theory is. You don't. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many fields. But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change that. Absolutely it is used to test difference. If it doesn't measure statistically significant, the difference hypothesis is not supported. Try telling a drug company it doesn't measure difference from a placebo! Drug companies aren't measuring difference. They're measuring effectiveness. Does this antibiotic cure infections? Does this cancer drug reduce the size of tumors? Measuring difference would be: Does this drug have any physiological effect on the body whatsoever? And, no, you cannot use a drug test as a difference test, because you cannot presume that a drug that fails to cure an infection therefore had no physiological effect. BTW, now you're talking about monadic tests. Previously, you've touted what you called "proto-monadic" tests, a la Oohashi. Which is it, Harry? You say we need a reference against which to compare ABX's results, but you can't even agree within your own mind about what that test should be. One of its strengths is that it goes beyond difference to get at where and how and why there is a difference. But only if there is a statistical difference. The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the information Harmon Kardon's current use of it. Not for difference. Of course for difference. Oh, this is rich. Now you're touting Harman as the model of your monadic ideal. Harman doesn't use monadic tests. They use QUICK-SWITCHING preference tests (not difference tests!). That's why they built their listening lab, Harry--so they could do quick-switching tests with speakers. I presume you're now going to tell us that their findings aren't validated. They are profiling speakers against the profile of know reference speakers. If there is no statistical difference, any differences in profile are useless (in a scientific sense). Of course, the Harmon people may set a lower statistical standard for such testing because they find even directional information helpful. But that is always a standard development dilemma. It is much less controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of normal listening patterns. ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so. Once again, name calling, however subtle in nature. I am not anti-science. I am against bad science parading as good science. Hey, you're the one who started with the religious insults. And anyone who professes the authority to "validate" science by ignoring the parts he just doesn't like is anti-science, in my book. The only thing one might fault it for is sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people. As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests? Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a difference? Yeah, and that's why ABX is better. ABX doesn't JUST test for "musical impression," it tests for any difference at all. And you can't identify a single audible sonic difference that ABX tests can't distinguish. As for your own "proposed" test, which is it: 1) monadic, like the pharmaceutical companies? 2) proto-monadic, like Oohashi? 3) quick-switching preference, like Harman? Or does it depend? Actually, it doesn't. None of those three tests could be used to confirm an audible difference between LP and CD. An ABX test could do so easily. So much for validation. bob |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Harry,
It was few weeks ago when you described your "monadic" test first time in this group. Now you are talking about this test as an established fact. Even if somebody would go into a hassle and an expense of implementing your suggestion it is not at all obvious that the test would produce any results. I think that most likely outcome that it would find your subjective terms like "warmth", "depth", etc. not correlated to the sound of the recording. I would bet that the distribution of particular term would be completely random for different users. But of course then you would require not 200 participants but 2000, etc. or something that again will make a proposed test unfeasible. And you will continue speculate about validity of your imaginary test. Please, either provide some proof that you so-called "monadic" test works or stop speculating about it. vlad Harry Lavo wrote: Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a difference? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
The question that interests me now is whether the implications of an identification ("Was that SACD or CD?") test need be the same as those of a discrimination ("Are A and B the same or different?") test. Does the research show, in particular, that an identification test (the kind I undertook) is among the kinds of tests that are reliable for determining whether two sources sound different? I'm not sure what you mean by "identification test." There is no such paradigm in what I have read. It is much more difficult to listen to a randomly selected source and try to "identify" it than to compare two sources and decide "same" or "different." In an ABX test, for example, you can listen to the two known sources as long as you want, switch back and forth between them and listen for differences, see if you can get a "fix" on just what each sounds like, then go for a test. In the test, you would select A or B, then let the comparator select X, and decide whether X is A or B. You usually do this by quick switching between A and X, then B and X, and deciding same or different. If X is same as A, then you put A as the identification of it, and press on to trial 2. If the differences are really audible, the trials will be child's play. If they sound identical, you will be guessing and probably know it. Anyway, the task is to decide same or different, not to identify the source when presented with a single signal. Gary Eickmeier |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Jun 2005 01:09:45 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
wrote: You can't do a "quick switch" test with two sources that run at different speeds because you can't synchronize them, which would be a dead giveaway in itself, so that is a bad example. If you want to use that example, you will have to listen first to one, then the other, in its entirety, then decide if the speed difference is audible. If so, then do a blind series, listening to a known version, then to a randomly chosen one, and decide whether it is the same or different. In this manner you will eventually arrive at a number for a speed differential that is at the audible threshold. That is the basic idea of how audio research is done. You may find that speed differences of 1.01 will be inaudible to most, but audible to some with perfect pitch. If this is interesting enough a question for you, then do the research and report it. p.s. Suppose one carried out research such as this and found, for a given one-minute-long excerpt, what is the audible threshold. So a given subject could reliably discriminate between the excerpt and a version that is 1.01 as fast (say). What theoretical reason would we have to think that, if we did a quick switch test (see my previous email for a suggestion about how to do it), the subject would be able to tell the excerpts apart in that test? I don't understand the point about perfect pitch, because I am supposing that one version is faster than the other, not that the speed and pitch are both higher (as would be the case with analog tape). Maybe I am not seeing your point though. Mark |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many fields. But never to test for *difference*. It would be an absolutely terrible test for difference. And just because one researcher used it one time for that purpose and got the result he (and you) wanted doesn't change that. Absolutely it is used to test difference. If it doesn't measure statistically significant, the difference hypothesis is not supported. Try telling a drug company it doesn't measure difference from a placebo! Drug companies aren't measuring difference. They're measuring effectiveness. Does this antibiotic cure infections? Does this cancer drug reduce the size of tumors? Measuring difference would be: Does this drug have any physiological effect on the body whatsoever? And how do they measure effectiveness. By the *difference* in physical phenomenon, and by the *difference* in self-reported behavior, that's how. When the drug company says this drug reduces the risk of heart attack by 25%, it has found a statistically significant difference between the samples of a magnitude of at least 25%. Likewise, if 200 people rate amp "A" as a 4.0 on a five-point scale with regard to naturalness in reproducing violins, and another 200 people rate amp "B" as a 4.3 on this same scale, and the statistical test for difference indicates that this is statistically significant at some level (usually 95%), then it can be said that Amp "B" has a more natural violin sound than Amp "A". The statistical test used is specific to the scalar technology used. There is no real difference between the drug comapny tests and the musical tests, except that the drug tests have objective incidences to meaure (as well, often, as subjective) whereas the music reproduction test is clearly all subjective. But that is a result of the fact that music itself is subjective, and *cannot* be measured objectively. The closest you can come perhaps is to substitute some kind of psychophysiological measurements. And, no, you cannot use a drug test as a difference test, because you cannot presume that a drug that fails to cure an infection therefore had no physiological effect. Sure you can. If the drug and the placebo (or the control drug) yield the same incidence of effective cure, there is no difference. The drug doesn't work (placebo) or at least work any better (control drug). Simple as that. BTW, now you're talking about monadic tests. Previously, you've touted what you called "proto-monadic" tests, a la Oohashi. Which is it, Harry? You say we need a reference against which to compare ABX's results, but you can't even agree within your own mind about what that test should be. Monadic tests are the gold standard because their is no test order bias, but they require the largest sample size and are those fairly impractical except for deep-pocketed, major studies. Proto monadic *is* a monadic test, with a *comparative* tagged directly on the end. Thus one can often get by with smaller sample sizes because there is yet a second measure of difference. At least some researchers favor it for this reason under some circumstances. On the other hand, proto-monadic testing has a strong order bias that has to be controlled. It's a judgement call, but either are preferable to quick-switch, comparative testing IMO because they intrude less into normal listening patterns. Both rely on after-the-fact recall and rating. One of its strengths is that it goes beyond difference to get at where and how and why there is a difference. But only if there is a statistical difference. The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the information Harmon Kardon's current use of it. Not for difference. Of course for difference. Oh, this is rich. Now you're touting Harman as the model of your monadic ideal. Harman doesn't use monadic tests. They use QUICK-SWITCHING preference tests (not difference tests!). That's why they built their listening lab, Harry--so they could do quick-switching tests with speakers. I presume you're now going to tell us that their findings aren't validated. Did you miss John Atkinson's recent posts that upon his recent visit to Harmon's research facitility, they had switched their speaker testing to monadic, evaluative testing using rating scales? I'm not holding them up as a model for anything, simply commenting that they are at least one company using monadic testing in the audio field. Which refutes your claim that none are. They are profiling speakers against the profile of know reference speakers. If there is no statistical difference, any differences in profile are useless (in a scientific sense). Of course, the Harmon people may set a lower statistical standard for such testing because they find even directional information helpful. But that is always a standard development dilemma. It is much less controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of normal listening patterns. ABX is "controversial" the way evolution is controversial. There is science, and then there are peole who wish that science were not so. Once again, name calling, however subtle in nature. I am not anti-science. I am against bad science parading as good science. Hey, you're the one who started with the religious insults. And anyone who professes the authority to "validate" science by ignoring the parts he just doesn't like is anti-science, in my book. Religous insults? You mean when I point out that an unwillingness to consider the underlying premises of the ABX test turns promotion of such a test (without validation) into a profession akin to religion? As opposed to true science? If that's your claim, I stand convicted. The only thing one might fault it for is sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people. As a test for difference, more numbers wouldn't solve the sensitivity problem. You're talking about a test that couldn't determine that LP and CD are sonically different! And you think such a test should be the gold standard for judging the accuracy of all other difference tests? Believe me Bob, it tests difference. But it tests subjective musical impression difference, not sound pressure levels. Can *you* see a difference? Yeah, and that's why ABX is better. ABX doesn't JUST test for "musical impression," it tests for any difference at all. And you can't identify a single audible sonic difference that ABX tests can't distinguish. How would you know that? A proper control test has never been done. As for your own "proposed" test, which is it: 1) monadic, like the pharmaceutical companies? 2) proto-monadic, like Oohashi? 3) quick-switching preference, like Harman? Or does it depend? I can't answer because your list is erroneous. I've answered the 1) vs. 2) above. And 3) simply indicates you missed out on, failed to notice, or for some reason dismissed John's reporting. Actually, it doesn't. None of those three tests could be used to confirm an audible difference between LP and CD. An ABX test could do so easily. So much for validation. We aren't looking to determine differences, Bob. We're looking to evaluate audio components sonic signatures and subjective shading of musical reproduction. And there has been no confimation that ABX or a straight AB difference test can show up all the various shadings that show up in longer-term listening evaluations. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"vlad" wrote in message
... Harry, It was few weeks ago when you described your "monadic" test first time in this group. Now you are talking about this test as an established fact. Even if somebody would go into a hassle and an expense of implementing your suggestion it is not at all obvious that the test would produce any results. I think that most likely outcome that it would find your subjective terms like "warmth", "depth", etc. not correlated to the sound of the recording. I would bet that the distribution of particular term would be completely random for different users. But of course then you would require not 200 participants but 2000, etc. or something that again will make a proposed test unfeasible. And you will continue speculate about validity of your imaginary test. Please, either provide some proof that you so-called "monadic" test works or stop speculating about it. vlad Well, I guess I can understand why you feel that way. But fact is, Vlad, I postulated such a test as a key part (the "control" part) of a validation test here nearly two years ago. I let the matter drop after much controvery, and only recently brought it up again (in another forum, but it has spilled over here). I also realized that perhaps understanding of what I was proposing was buried in the complexity of the overall testing needed to validate quick-switch testing, so I have tried to make my explainations as simple as possible. The reason I say it is a standard test is that it is widely used in the social sciences, psychological and behavioral sciences, and in the medical sciences. Audio is a field where it has not traditionally been used, at least to my knowledge. Partly this may be structural (there are not a lot of large companies worried about the quality of musical reprodcution, after all). But more likely it is because the field has been dominated by sound research conducted by physisists, electircal engineers, and audiologists. However, more recently scientists have made rapid progress in brain research with the growing realization that how we hear is very complex, and how we hear music even more so. There is growing realization that musical evaluation must be treated as a subjective phenomenon, and that means treating its measurement using the tools of the social and psychological scientists, and the medical scientists, not necessarily the physical scientists. As difficult as you may find it to believe that ratings of things like "warmth" or "depth" or "dimensional" have meaning, those kinds of subjective yet descriptive phrases are widely used in subjective research. Of course, part of the art of researchers in a given field is determining the best, most precise, way of asking the question to minimize confusion. You don't want to say "on a scale of one to five, rate this item on "warmth"". You doubtless would construct a scale that said " on a scale of one to five, where 'one' is a relatively cool tone, and 'five' is a relatively warm tone, where would you place the sound you just heard?". Or something to that effect. Part of the research art is developing, and oft-times pretesting, the questions so that you know they are meaningful and with minimum misinterpretation. This is all practical "art", and there are commercial researchers who are quite good at it. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 25 Jun 2005 02:29:34 GMT, "Buster Mudd" wrote: Mark, I've noticed a few of your posts in this thread have been attempting to discuss auditory memory as it applies to musical themes, motifs, and forms...whereas most of the other folks here have been responding as if the discussion were about auditory memory as it applies to identifying sonic differences between audio components. Intuitively (for whatever *that's* worth!) it strikes me that there's a fundamental difference between these two types of auditory memories that may explain the obstacles to understanding one another: There is a certain amount of "content" in a musical composition that is objectively verifiable: e.g., Theme B is an inversion of Theme A, or, this passage is in the relative minor key of the opening statement, etc. These types of information can be easily confirmed by anyone with a copy of the score. And these are examples of the sort of content that can most definitely be percieved subconciously but have an affect on one's subsequent perception of a musical passage. I don't think anyone would disagree that this type of auditory memory exists; it's the entire basis upon which Western Art Music was founded! But the whole point of performing a valid audio test to determine whether or not there exists a difference between two audio components is to find out if there *is* any objectively verifiable "content". We're not asking whether or not the subject has retained a memory (conciously or otherwise) of This Thing; we're performing these tests to first determine whether or not This Thing even exists. Hi Buster, that's interesting. What do you think the relation is between these two types of auditory memory? I am not sure whether to read you as saying that the things being verified by audio tests are the same things you refer to in the previous paragraph (musical "content") or different kinds of things. Definitely two different kind of things, hence the reason for my post in the first place! Musical content (of the sort I described) is undeniably "there"; an auditory memory test might be able to discern whether or not a subject was concious of prior content while hearing a subsequent passage, but there's no question that this sort of content exists, and is inherent in the music. Plus I would think you could make a pretty good arguement that regardless of whether or not the subject was concious of having heard this content, that content had an undeniable affect on the subject's perception of later music. Contrast that with discernible sonic differences between audio components: A valid test would have to first determine whether or not differences (the "content" in this case) even exist before one can move on to wondering about whether or not auditory memory (concious or not) of such things affects subsequent listening. So I think the "relation...between these two types of auditory memory" is that one *is* a type of audio memory, and the other *might be* -- or, possibly might not be -- a type of audio memory. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio |