wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
vlad wrote:
So before pouring any money or efforts in this kind of testing I
would
ask first why you think that this test will give results at all.

Because he doesn't like the results we've already got. No other
reason.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Bob.


The problem with using monadic tests for the purpose of determining
whether any difference is discernible between two components is that
the you will get a large (and incalcuable) number of false negatives.
You will get negative results:
1) when subjects really can't distinguish between the two,
2) when they could but didn't in this particular test (the standard
false negative that all such tests face), and
3) when subjects could distinguish between the two, but their
impressions based on whatever criteria you asked them about did not
lean consistently in a single direction. For example, if they could
all
hear a difference between LP and CD, but half of them preferred one
and
found it more lifelike/musical/etc., and the other half had exactly
the
opposite reaction, the results would be inconclusive. And what good is
a test for difference that can't even distinguish between things that
sound as different as LP and CD?

Basically, Bob, this exposition shows that you have no idea of how
scaling
works to measure differences. Please read my current posts before you
*decide* (based on erroneous beliefs) why it doesn't work. If I am to
believe you, I just wasted twenty five years of work and my company(s)
didn't make the hundreds of millions of dollars based on it that they
thought they did.

And those were audio tests. Correct?

Bob's critique were of test design and use, not audio per se. Test
design
and use are practices in an of themselves, applicable to testing in any
field. Makes no difference in this case whether food, drugs, or
audio...scalar ratings work and are evaluated the same way in a mondadic
test.

Yes, which leads me to my point. The little details of how a test is
implemented are dependent on what you are testing. You keep trying to
take
your experience with food tasing tests and apply them to audio testing
apparently without reading the scientific literature on hearing
perception.

I doubt if you really understand the difference between marketing research
and
basic research.


I did years of development work. I think I understand a fair amount of
it...albeit I was not a researcher myself, but I led research teams. Most
of the times it was applied research; occasionally something approaching
basic research.

One thing I do understand is basic to all testing. The test must not alter
the phenomenon under study. And it is that basic premises which is highly
questionable about (particularly) ABX testing.

As well, there is no basic difference between market research and other
research in the social sciences, which is what the audio work seems to lack
for presumed reasons I have already noted. The test techniques tend to be
similar; only the particulars differ. And I quite know enough about audio
to know how the particulars would differ in designing an audio test.

When you have response that is intrinsically subjective, to ignore
subjective testing is folly.

A slight variant on the previous example, where there is an attempt to
"line up" the second segment appropriately with the first.

Method (1'): there are five beats in each segment, where the first
beat of the second segment sounds simultaneously with the last beat of
the first (so it sounds like the second segment starts on the downbeat
of the second measure). You attempt to determine if the tempos are
the same or different.

Method (2'): there are two beats per segment, where the first beat of
the second pair sounds simultaneously with the second beat of the
first pair. You attempt to determine if the distance between the beats
is the same or different.

Which will be more sensitive to a difference in speed?

Good point and I like your example. How about a slightly different one:
The excerpt consists of a steady pulse, say 120 beats per minute.
And I have to compare this to a segment at possibly 1.X the speed
and judge whether the speed of the segments is the same.

Method (1): Thinking of the pulse as a succession of quarter notes in 4/4 time,
I listen to a measure of one versus a measure of the other
and attempt to determine if the tempos are the same.

Method (2): I listen to sets of two beats and attempt to determine
if the distance between the beats is the same or different.
(There is no attempt to synchronize the first beat of
the second set with the first set.)

Which will be more sensitive?

On 28 Jun 2005 15:29:02 GMT, wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:
In the example in question, I am supposing that the speed is higher
but not the pitch. If the only way to do this is by digital signal
processing, then so be it. There will be an audible threshold

No, there won't. You're not measuring audibility here.

That's interesting... If you can discriminate some property by
listening, why not call it audible? It certainly isn't visual or
olfactory. Isn't the perception of elapsed time just *part* of
listening? Would you say at least that tempo is (normally) audible?
Is the difference between a half note and a quarter note (at normal
tempos) an audible difference? Is the length of a note one if its
audible properties?

You're measuring
perception of elapsed time.

... your question displays
a misconception about quick-switching tests. They do not *require*
switching; they *allow* switching. A subject can, in a quick-switching
test, listen to the entire one-minute segment, if he so chooses.
Subject tend not to do so, however, because it tends not to work.

OK, the issue is really about short vs. long segments. The issue is
whether you ever give anything up when you go from longer passages to
shorter segments, and, if so, why.

Let me pose your question a different way. Which method would work
better:

1) The DeBellis Method: Listen to a full one-minute segment, then
listen to the same segment (possibly now stretched to 1.X minutes), and
determine whether the two are the same.

2) The Marcus Method (if I may be so bold): Listen to sets of two
beats, and determine whether the distance between the beats is the same
or different.

I don't know offhand whether this experiment has been done (though I
can't imagine I'm the first to think of it). Absent any data, I see no
reason to believe that your method would be more sensitive than mine.
And given the general pattern of findings in psychoacoustics, I'd bet
on mine.

Good point and I like your example. How about a slightly different
one: The excerpt consists of a steady pulse, say 120 beats per minute.
And you have to compare this to a segment at possibly 1.X the speed
and judge whether the speed of the segments is the same.

Method (1): There are five beats in each segment, where the first beat
of the second segment sounds simultaneously with the last beat of the
first. You hear the pulse as a succession of quarter notes in 4/4
time, so it sounds like the second segment starts on the downbeat of
the second measure. (So basically you are comparing two whole
measures with one another.) You attempt to determine if the tempos
are the same or different, i.e., if the tempo remains constant. In
visual terms (sorry):

123412341 (beat of the measure)
xxxxx
____yyyyy

Method (2): there are two beats per segment, where the first beat of
the second pair sounds simultaneously with the second beat of the
first pair (in order to follow a procedure as similar as possible to
Method (1)). You attempt to determine if the distance between the
beats is the same or different. Again, visually:

xx
_yy

Which will be more sensitive to a difference in speed?

Mark

Buster Mudd wrote:
"Because the samples are too short"??? Unless your dots & dees are
plodding along at an excrutiatingly lethargic adagio, the two second
samples *wouldn't* be shorter than a single complete iteration of this
recurring dot-dot-dee or dot-dot-dot-dee pattern...which is all that
would be required for most folks to identify which signal is which.

Each dot or dee is one second long. But I was wrong to say the samples
could be two seconds long; they should be one second long and then it
works.

Mark

Harry Lavo wrote:
"vlad" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

snip

Harry, you did not address my statement about your "monadic" test
procedure. Let me repeat it here -

-- 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.



Harry, you still did not address my concern about you =E2=80=9Cmonadic=E2=
=80=9D
testing.

Well, you thoughts are your thoughts. But I have done a lot of research =
in
food, where ratings are subjective, and I simply disagree.

Is not it ironic that you reject audio tests with pink noise just
because =E2=80=9Cwhite noise=E2=80=9D is not musical but test procedure for=
food is
perfectly adequate =EF=81=8A.

If one amp, for
example, performs in a way that can be characterized as "cool" and another
as "warm", peoples ratings will reflect that even if they think they are
rating the music rather than the amp. Although there probably is no reas=
on
to deceive them since the test is mondadic. There will be substantial
scatter; they won't march in lockstep. But the averages will reflect the
difference, and if the difference in averages is great enough, they will
reach the 95% significance level. Then you can conclude that amp "A" is
warmer-sounding than Amp "B".


Even after your elaborate procedure subjective preference is still
subjective preference and nothing more. It can be influenced by the
temperature of the day, situation on the stock market, last issue of
Stereophile, etc, etc. I understand that marketing droids want to know
subjective preference of the public for serial brands, it translates
into $$ immediately. But we are talking about high-end audio products,
Harry.

Even if you will tell me that excruciating and expensive =E2=80=9Cmonadic=
=E2=80=9D
test showed that box A is preferred subjectively by 52% of the public
it means nothing for me. I can be in another 48% part; I can have my
preferences changed for no reasons, etc., etc. So when I am buying
piece of equipment, I want to be sure that it is competently designed,
and fairly priced. And if two pieces cannot be distinguished in DBT it
is enough for me to consider them sonically identical.

But you insist (as it seems to me) on =E2=80=9Csubjective=E2=80=9D approva=
l of
this piece of gear by the high-end community. I think it is silly.

So from this point of view even if your =E2=80=9Cmonadic=E2=80=9D test wou=
ld work
it would have no value to me. And to many others I suspect.

On top of it I think you simply cannot figure out subjective
preferences with this test if two tested pieces were found identical
under DBT. The results of this test will be the same as random
guessing.

Likewise, you can ask for overall preference and a whole series of ratings
on characteristics. Together they will tell you if and how the two amps
differ.

Of course they differ. But the question is can it be heard? DBT can
address that part of the question. And I don=E2=80=99t give a damn about
subjective preferences of =E2=80=9Cgolden eared=E2=80=9D self appointed exp=
erts.
You have to prove to me first that you understand the subject before I
will listen to your subjective opinion.


Also you are trying to present your test as a mean of "validation"
of ABX/DBT tests. ABX/DBT tests do not need validation. They test
audibility of differences in physical devices (amp, wires, etc) and for
this purpose they work just fine according to experts in this field.


The test differences that are volume-related, since as frequency response,
loudness, and standard distortions. They don't do so well, many of us
believe, on things that are more complex perceptually such as imaging,
transparency, dynamic phase coherence, dimensionality, etc.


No, DBT can be used for testing any kind of differences. Don=E2=80=99t twi=
st
it, Harry. The main question is -- do these differences exist when you
don=E2=80=99t know what peace if gear is at work?


For instance, many people have subjective preference for LPs. But it
does not make LP an accurate reproduction medium? Should we stick to
LPs for music listening? We have much better means now to store and
transfer audio signal. It is the matter of preference for some people,
that's it. Nobody argues with preferences.

If I were a Sony executive and my testing among 300 people should a
statistically significant 60-40 preference for vinyl over CD, I might thi=
nk
hard about the product and marketing implications of same. Likewise, if I
had hard evidence that SACD was preferred over CD, I'd certainly be think=
ing
hard about how to capitalize on that fact.


I know, I know, this info is critically important for marketing
droids. But I have no concern about market acception/rejection of
vinyl, CD, SACD, XYZ, RTB, etc., etc. I am in a search of the best
possible sound for my money in my room, Harry. And for me you
=E2=80=9Cmonadic=E2=80=9D tests are meaningless because they don=E2=80=99t =
have any info
that I can use.


DBT does not need validation by "monadic" tests.


The double-blind technique as a concept certainly does not. However,
qucik-switch comparative testing certainly does for the purpose of
open-ended evaluation of audio components, since these tests were designed
or a whole 'nother purpose.


You are twisting facts again, Harry. Nobody here stated that
quick-switch is a necessary prerequisite of DBT. You can tailor it to
your habits except one =E2=80=93 the identity of tested piece should be
obscured from you. The rest is technicalities.

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 audiologis=
ts.
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 psychologic=
al
scientists, and the medical scientists, not necessarily the physical
scientists.


So you want it to be treated as any other commercially viable packaged
food product?


No, I think first of all you will find that if you will take two amps
or wires that are undistinguishable in DBT , then results of you
subjective evaluation test will be all over the map. I would expect
that subjective feelings of subject will be very poorly correlated if
correlated at all with particular pieces of equipment.

Au contraire...if their truly is no difference the averages of the two ce=
lls
evaluation the amps or wires will be identical from a statistical
standpoint, that is, they would fail to differ at a statistically
significant level. Within each evaluating cell, there would be a lot of
scatter, but the averages are what are used in such a test.

Did not you repeat what I said? Thanks.


So before pouring any money or efforts in this kind of testing I would
ask first why you think that this test will give results at all. My
second question would be what you are going to do with results.
Subjective preferences tend to change with the time and can be
influenced by the last review in a Stereophile easily.

I personally don't care about subjective feeling of people that I
don't know.

What do you mean by that?

I mean there are firms whose job it is to help companies design, conduct,
and evaluate tests. And one of the skills a company that does this has to
develop is the ability to design and pretest questions that make sense and
increase response coherence. I happened to study under the founder of one
such company while obtaining my MBA from Northwestern back in the early
'60's. Dr. Sidney Levy was a highly regarded leader in the field of
behavioral psychology. And then for twenty-five years as an executive I
helped design and make decisions based on such testing for a major consum=
er
packaged goods company, working with many such companies.

Packaged food test methods applied to high end sound? M-m-m,
interesting =EF=81=8A
I have all my degrees in Mathematics from one of the best mathematical
departments in a world (References are provided on request=EF=81=8A). And I
can certify that your knowledge of statistic is very poor at most.

vlad

On 28 Jun 2005 21:57:43 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

I would propose that the 'experiencing' of music isn't inherently
beyond scientific investigation, as brain scanning technology advances.
Certainly the 'experiencing' of music has been the subject of psychological
investigation.

Yes, there is lots of research nowadays into music cognition. And
music theory has a lot to do with describing musical experience, or at
least it should have a lot to do with it, on the view of some
theorists, and music theory is, at least arguably, continuous with the
scientific approach.

AFAIK, however, neither of these (music cognition research or music
theory) currently incorporates much brain scanning, and I would not
necessarily conclude that they are thereby failing to be the right
kind of Science to investigate musical experience. Once you do the
scan, how do you interpret it? How do you determine what that brain
structure is a representation *of*? There is much room for valid
science even before we get to the brain scans.

Mark

On 28 Jun 2005 21:59:06 GMT, wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

We simply don't know that. Knowledge of the brain suggests they may be, or
at the very least are different enough demands on the brain that the
"controlled conditions" where those conditions impose the need for
quick-switching, short-snippet, comparative choices interfere with normal
musical perception.

Then you would then agree that all musicians are unmusical because the
effort involved in just playing the right notes at the right time (objective)
destroys their emotional perception of music. Playing all those right notes
at the right time also involves training, (read: rehersal, where
musicians break pieces up into parts, make exercises out of passages,
compare snippets of interpretive ideas played back to back and etc. and then
have to put it all back together) which is something else that you seem
to think destroys music.

I think it's absurd. Sorry.


I don't think it's so unusual for a musician, at least at some stage,
to feel that he/she has to get past a focus on technical issues (as
when learning a piece) and (re-)gain a sense of the flow of the music.
That is certainly my experience as an amateur pianist. Maybe once you
get good enough you transcend that, even when learning new pieces,
though it is worth noting that nobody spends six (or however many)
hours a day in a practice room doing audio tests for several years
(there is no Juilliard of audio tests, hm...). I imagine, though,
that the professional musician(s) following this thread have better
insights than this to offer!

Mark

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Hey, I have MANY limitations! :-) I have found that I have sensitivity
in regard to tempi at about 3 beats per min.

3 beats per minute out of how many? Three beats of Largo is a lot
longer than 3 beats of Presto.

Three BPM out of a minute's worth of beats.

This is confusing. Let's say I have a piece of music that has a fast
tempo: 140 bpm. I cannot tell between 140 bpm and 143 bpm (a 2.1%
difference), I don't think.

Let's pick another piece of music with a slow tempo, say a Largo, with
30 bpm. I think I can tell 30 bpm from 33 bpm (a 10% difference).

I was speaking in generalities. I think that I could do that at
140...I'll have someone test me! :-)

Hopefully you see that a difference of 3 bpm can be very easy or very
difficult, or anywhere in between, to discern.

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

We simply don't know that. Knowledge of the brain suggests they may be,
or
at the very least are different enough demands on the brain that the
"controlled conditions" where those conditions impose the need for
quick-switching, short-snippet, comparative choices interfere with normal
musical perception.

Then you would then agree that all musicians are unmusical because the
effort involved in just playing the right notes at the right time
(objective)
destroys their emotional perception of music. Playing all those right
notes
at the right time also involves training, (read: rehersal, where
musicians break pieces up into parts, make exercises out of passages,
compare snippets of interpretive ideas played back to back and etc. and
then
have to put it all back together) which is something else that you seem
to think destroys music.

I think it's absurd. Sorry.

And I would suggest that a musician performing is more akin to an audiophile
taking a test, rather than one kicking back and simply experiencing the
music.

Based on all the other things you've said, you're now saying that
musicians don't experience fully the emotions in music.

I think it's clear you're simply just enjoying being an iconoclast. That's
all about you have to offer.

Have fun.

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 28 Jun 2005 21:57:43 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

I would propose that the 'experiencing' of music isn't inherently
beyond scientific investigation, as brain scanning technology advances.
Certainly the 'experiencing' of music has been the subject of psychological
investigation.

Yes, there is lots of research nowadays into music cognition. And
music theory has a lot to do with describing musical experience, or at
least it should have a lot to do with it, on the view of some
theorists, and music theory is, at least arguably, continuous with the
scientific approach.

Music theory is based on the practice of what composers and improvisors do.

It can describe the musical experience pretty well. But it takes ear training.
It's limitation in this respect is that skills such as looking at score and
'hearing' a work in your head doesn't involve a physical acoustic
performance.

On 28 Jun 2005 15:29:02 GMT, wrote:

The Marcus Method ... Listen to sets of two
beats, and determine whether the distance between the beats is the same
or different.

Now that I look again at my Method 2, it seems needlessly restrictive.
Let's just say you use the Marcus Method to compare the pairs of
beats. Which is more sensitive, my Method 1 or the Marcus Method?

Method 1, again, is basically where you hear two measures of 4/4 time,
and have to tell whether the second measure was at the same tempo as
the first. (My intuition about this, by the way, is that it is easier
to tell if it's slowing down than if it's speeding up, but I don't
know if that's actually true.)

Mark

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Hey, I have MANY limitations! :-) I have found that I have
sensitivity
in regard to tempi at about 3 beats per min.

3 beats per minute out of how many? Three beats of Largo is a lot
longer than 3 beats of Presto.

Three BPM out of a minute's worth of beats.

This is confusing. Let's say I have a piece of music that has a fast
tempo: 140 bpm. I cannot tell between 140 bpm and 143 bpm (a 2.1%
difference), I don't think.

Let's pick another piece of music with a slow tempo, say a Largo, with
30 bpm. I think I can tell 30 bpm from 33 bpm (a 10% difference).

I was speaking in generalities. I think that I could do that at
140...I'll have someone test me! :-)

Hopefully you see that a difference of 3 bpm can be very easy or very
difficult, or anywhere in between, to discern.

Yes, hopefully I do. Thanks for pointing it out.

Harry Lavo wrote:

My guess is that this is why white noise testing and volume
differences are picked us so readily in these tests. They are
simplistic and continuous.

Music and musical reproduction, on the other hand, .........

No Harry, just the opposite. Noise is the most complicated signal there is.
The next point is by definition unpredictable. Music is fixed pattern
repeated frequencies. You already know what the next tone will be, once you
have learned the pattern.
Noise will be always different, still its character is always according to
the distribution. With music you have problems to rate a speaker, too much
midrange and the violins sound really good, or whatever.
Noise will expose the "signature" of the speaker, cart, turntable or
whatever gives a colouration. It is like clear water.
Of course if you are a Whisky drinker, somebody giving you clear water, you
will be disgusted. But clear water will give you the highest sensitivity of
any addition in taste, the Whiskey has too much taste by itself and covers
certain subtle differences.
So if you want to test if the glass is clean you will take water. You do not
need to drink it a whole week, just the first sip will give you already most
of the information. You are right, the Whisky drinker will take longer for
the same evaluation, that is why after each glass he changes. Wodka, Coke,
Orange juice, Coffee... all his favourite pieces he puts in the glass, he
will get high and forget about the testing. With clear water it would have
been immediately.
I know you understand food testing, so I gave this example.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

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.

So-called 'perfect pitch' doesn't really have anything to do with absolute pitch
discrimination at all, because what perfect pitch is a special type of memory
that enables a person to recognize a generic classification of pitches within an
octave and associate names with them. It is almost always tied to the pitch
standard that a person first learns, and to a lesser degree (especially with
modern keyboard players) equal temperament. It can be nightmare for those who
were never exposed to different pitch standards until later, who often hear pieces
played in different keys as 'all wrong.' Usually the workaround for those folks
is to learn to transpose in their heads and you have to be a quick thinker
to do that.

There are those who don't have 'perfect pitch' who have greater pitch
discrimination than those that do and it is by no means whatsoever an
indicator of musical ability. It can also be learned, but that is
relatively uncommon.

"vlad" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote: "vlad" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

snip

Harry, you did not address my statement about your "monadic" test
procedure. Let me repeat it here -

-- 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.



Harry, you still did not address my concern about you "monadic"
testing.

I'm sorry, but I believe I did. If you feel I did not, you need to expound
upon it. I'm not a mind-reader.


Well, you thoughts are your thoughts. But I have done a lot of research
in
food, where ratings are subjective, and I simply disagree.

Is not it ironic that you reject audio tests with pink noise just
because "white noise" is not musical but test procedure for food is
perfectly adequate ?.

Not ironic at all. I am questioning quick-switch, comparative testing as a
means of open-ended evaluation of audio components, because I believe the
test design by its very nature is likely to interfere with the normal
musical listening experience. "Do no harm (to the item under test)" is the
first rule of good research in any field.

As I have explained elsewhere....the experience of music, whether live, or
through components is inherently subjective. And a test to measure
subjective elements arises out of the social sciences and psychology, not
from physics or engineering. Similarly, the tests used for food were pretty
much standard variations on conventional social science and psychological
tests.

If one amp, for
example, performs in a way that can be characterized as "cool" and
another
as "warm", peoples ratings will reflect that even if they think they are
rating the music rather than the amp. Although there probably is no
reason
to deceive them since the test is mondadic. There will be substantial
scatter; they won't march in lockstep. But the averages will reflect the
difference, and if the difference in averages is great enough, they will
reach the 95% significance level. Then you can conclude that amp "A" is
warmer-sounding than Amp "B".


Even after your elaborate procedure subjective preference is still
subjective preference and nothing more. It can be influenced by the
temperature of the day, situation on the stock market, last issue of
Stereophile, etc, etc. I understand that marketing droids want to know
subjective preference of the public for serial brands, it translates
into $$ immediately. But we are talking about high-end audio products,
Harry.

Not just looking for preference, but difference and reasons for preference.
All can be derived from the same test. However, the main reason I have
proposed it here is simple. It is the only way to determine if there truly
is a difference in perception of two pieces of equipment, not by comparison,
but by experience and descriptive rating under controlled condition,
followed by the application of statistical analysis. Once this is
determined a subjective "truth" is known. Once the subjective "truth" is
known, then this truth can serve as a standard to determine whether and how
well quick-switch, comparative testing (such as ABX and AB) can serve as
shortcuts to this same "truth" (or not).


Even if you will tell me that excruciating and expensive "monadic"
test showed that box A is preferred subjectively by 52% of the public
it means nothing for me. I can be in another 48% part; I can have my
preferences changed for no reasons, etc., etc. So when I am buying
piece of equipment, I want to be sure that it is competently designed,
and fairly priced. And if two pieces cannot be distinguished in DBT it
is enough for me to consider them sonically identical.

But you insist (as it seems to me) on "subjective" approval of
this piece of gear by the high-end community. I think it is silly.

I don't insist on anything. I'm talking about perceptions that already exist
in the marketplace. I'd like to take two such pieces of equipment (lets say
amps) and see if the perceptions are "real" in blind, monadic testing. If
they are, then I'd like to see if ABX and AB can indicate the same thing, or
at least an accurate subset of it (e.g., if their is a difference and
preference, ABX must at least show the difference) and AB must at least show
the preference.)

So from this point of view even if your "monadic" test would work
it would have no value to me. And to many others I suspect.

You think that definitively confirming that ABX and AB testing work, or
don't work, for purposes of evaluating audio equipment is not important?
I'm sorry, but I do since these tests are practical *if they work* and
misleading *if they do not work*.

On top of it I think you simply cannot figure out subjective
preferences with this test if two tested pieces were found identical
under DBT. The results of this test will be the same as random
guessing.

DBT covers a lot of ground. Do you understand that the monadic test would
also be blind? (the double part is less important since there is no
comparison). But if you mean via ABX...then you are using the ABX test as
the standard to judge the liklihood of the ABX test being wrong...which is a
non-starter on the face of it (despite the fact that many of its supporters
seem to want to do just that).

You are presuming the outcome. And you are presuming it on a false premise,
namely, that ABX has already been proven for this purpose. It has not been.


Likewise, you can ask for overall preference and a whole series of
ratings
on characteristics. Together they will tell you if and how the two amps
differ.

Of course they differ. But the question is can it be heard? DBT can
address that part of the question. And I don't give a damn about
subjective preferences of "golden eared" self appointed experts.
You have to prove to me first that you understand the subject before I
will listen to your subjective opinion.

The test will answer that...if the differences can be perceived it will show
up. That simple. If they cannot be, then they will not show up. Why is
this so hard to understand. It has nothing to do with measurement. You
might think that "thinness" is a function of frequency response, and on an
abx test this will show up. But instead it might be due to dynamic
constriction in the upper bass, or other factors that the ear/brain easily
perceives when listening to music normally, but could easily miss because of
lack of context in a short-snippet, quick-switch ABX test. With the monadic
test, it doesn't matter. Whatever the reason, if the perceived difference
is there and is real, it will show up. If it is a function of sighted bias,
brand reputation, or any other potential bias, it wont. If it is too low in
level to be perceived, it won't. It is that simple.



Also you are trying to present your test as a mean of "validation"
of ABX/DBT tests. ABX/DBT tests do not need validation. They test
audibility of differences in physical devices (amp, wires, etc) and for
this purpose they work just fine according to experts in this field.


The test differences that are volume-related, since as frequency
response,
loudness, and standard distortions. They don't do so well, many of us
believe, on things that are more complex perceptually such as imaging,
transparency, dynamic phase coherence, dimensionality, etc.


No, DBT can be used for testing any kind of differences. Don't twist
it, Harry. The main question is -- do these differences exist when you
don't know what peace if gear is at work?

Such testing loses sensitivity even when substituting music for white noise
and differing only loudness levels. So how do you know it measures "any
kind of difference". That is the crux. Such all-encompassing
definitiveness is attributed to the testing by its supporters without any
proof. We are not talking white noise here...we are taling evaluation of
audio components via open-ended listening to music.


For instance, many people have subjective preference for LPs. But it
does not make LP an accurate reproduction medium? Should we stick to
LPs for music listening? We have much better means now to store and
transfer audio signal. It is the matter of preference for some people,
that's it. Nobody argues with preferences.

If I were a Sony executive and my testing among 300 people should a
statistically significant 60-40 preference for vinyl over CD, I might
think
hard about the product and marketing implications of same. Likewise, if
I
had hard evidence that SACD was preferred over CD, I'd certainly be
thinking
hard about how to capitalize on that fact.


I know, I know, this info is critically important for marketing
droids. But I have no concern about market acception/rejection of
vinyl, CD, SACD, XYZ, RTB, etc., etc. I am in a search of the best
possible sound for my money in my room, Harry. And for me you
"monadic" tests are meaningless because they don't have any info
that I can use.

What they can and could do is verify whether the more *practical* tests
work. Wouldn't that be important for you to know?

But until then I would consider the use of ABX to be potentially misleading,
just as sighted listening without bias control could be. But if it were me,
I'd perhaps do a blind AB preference test while remaining sceptical and then
spend a length of time doing sighted evaluation, and then make the choice.
I definitely would not rely on an ABX test to make the choice for me.


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
vlad wrote:
So before pouring any money or efforts in this kind of testing I
would
ask first why you think that this test will give results at all.

Because he doesn't like the results we've already got. No other
reason.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Bob.


The problem with using monadic tests for the purpose of determining
whether any difference is discernible between two components is that
the you will get a large (and incalcuable) number of false negatives.
You will get negative results:
1) when subjects really can't distinguish between the two,
2) when they could but didn't in this particular test (the standard
false negative that all such tests face), and
3) when subjects could distinguish between the two, but their
impressions based on whatever criteria you asked them about did not
lean consistently in a single direction. For example, if they could
all
hear a difference between LP and CD, but half of them preferred one
and
found it more lifelike/musical/etc., and the other half had exactly
the
opposite reaction, the results would be inconclusive. And what good is
a test for difference that can't even distinguish between things that
sound as different as LP and CD?

Basically, Bob, this exposition shows that you have no idea of how
scaling
works to measure differences. Please read my current posts before you
*decide* (based on erroneous beliefs) why it doesn't work. If I am to
believe you, I just wasted twenty five years of work and my company(s)
didn't make the hundreds of millions of dollars based on it that they
thought they did.

And those were audio tests. Correct?

Bob's critique were of test design and use, not audio per se. Test
design
and use are practices in an of themselves, applicable to testing in any
field. Makes no difference in this case whether food, drugs, or
audio...scalar ratings work and are evaluated the same way in a mondadic
test.

Yes, which leads me to my point. The little details of how a test is
implemented are dependent on what you are testing. You keep trying to
take
your experience with food tasing tests and apply them to audio testing
apparently without reading the scientific literature on hearing
perception.

I doubt if you really understand the difference between marketing research
and
basic research.


I did years of development work. I think I understand a fair amount of
it...albeit I was not a researcher myself, but I led research teams. Most
of the times it was applied research; occasionally something approaching
basic research.

One thing I do understand is basic to all testing. The test must not alter
the phenomenon under study. And it is that basic premises which is highly
questionable about (particularly) ABX testing.

As well, there is no basic difference between market research and other
research in the social sciences, which is what the audio work seems to lack
for presumed reasons I have already noted. The test techniques tend to be
similar; only the particulars differ. And I quite know enough about audio
to know how the particulars would differ in designing an audio test.

HOW can you say that when you apparently haven't studied the literature?


When you have response that is intrinsically subjective, to ignore
subjective testing is folly.

It is you that is ignoring subjective testing. You reject out of hand the
empirical evidence without apparently having studied what it is.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...

Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
...


Harry Lavo wrote:



We aren't looking to determine differences, Bob.

You're the one who started this whole conversation by insisting that an
ABX test was inadequate. Well, the ONLY purpose of an ABX test is to
determine difference. If your argument is that an ABX test is not
adequate for determining something it was not designed to determine,
then you've been wasting our time.


It started because an ABX test was proposed as a means of making
listening decisions for audio equipment.
The fact that *difference* is the wrong measure is just one of the
problems with this approach.

Clearly you must be joking. Difference is *the* requisite predicate. If
you cannot determine a difference, due to sonic characteristics only, then
a preference (as between components) must be based on non-sonic
attributes. QED.


Difference is a necessary condition to explain differences in sonic
perception. The problem is that AB or ABX testing has never been shown
decisively to be able to include in their "difference" measurement *all* the
things that can led to a perception difference. Thus the need for a control
test.

While the thread *was* in the context of ABX, a careful re-reading will
clarify that ABX was *NOT* specified anywhere in my post. Your
statement that "*difference* is the wrong measure" was the risable point.




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.

There is no evidence that "various shadings" really do show up (rather
than simply being imagined by the listener) in longer-term listening
evaluations of components that cannot be distinguished in ABX tests.
You are once again assuming your conclusion.


The shadings can presume to be there, as they are heard by many people,
until proven otherwise. And they can't be proven otherwise except
through something like a monadic control test. The "shadings" are
subjective; it requires a test that can determine if subjective
perception is real or not and that is by ratings among a large
cross-section of audiophiles, with statistical analysis applied.

You keep repeating this misguided idea that a "monadic / proto-monadic"
test must be applied to some vast population to have any meaning. As a
research method to identify the frequency/distribution of some attribute
or parameter, and extrapolate that to the general population, this method
has merit. However, relative to the situation being discussed here, it is
merely a dodge. Why? Because population distribution is irrelevant within
the current context. You're talking about a test for identification of
*preference* within the population, where there is a *known* difference in
presented stimuli. That's a basic precept in the method. There is no
*known* difference in stimuli in the current context - that's the whole
argument.


I have proposed it only as a means of validating ABX and AB testing, to make
sure that they can deliver the goods in the more esoteric perceptual areas.
It has never been done, and until it is, the use of such tests, while
bequiling because of their simplicity, is simply a matter of faith in the
test technique. Not science.

Again, YOU are restricting the methodology to ABX (whose efficacy you
doubt, for what I believe are obvious reasons). The "method" I address
in the above paragraph is *yours*, so the point you attempt to make is
clearly misguided. You mistrust ABX. Fine, use your own methods, just
incorporate blind and level matched. Simple really.



Luckily, however, you already have a population subset, yourself included,
who claim to possess an attribute (i.e. who can distinguish, sighted, the
differences within a myriad of devices believed by many to be
indistiguishable, and believe that those differences are *real* and
reproducible), and thus the test need only involve that subset. Conduct
the test among the identified subset, construct the test to utilize blind
controls and level matching, then test in whatever manner, using whatever
scoring system, and for whatever period, you wish. Perform sufficient
replicates to generate a statistically valid data set, and you're done.


You can't use the test you believe might be inaccurate to validate itself.
Think about it.

Are you purposely misunderstanding me? YOU are proposing the test under
discussion, and it is *NOT* ABX. Do you now argue against yourself?


Will this be universally transferrable to the whole population? No, but
again, that's irrelevant. It will, however, identify whether there is
such an attribute (ability to distinguish cable differences for e.g.)
within the *ONLY* population subset of interest. There is no utility in
testing outside that subset until the existence of the 'peceived'
attribute is confirmed, or not.

Again you miss the basic point. The test is not *PROVEN* to work for all
conditions of perceived sonic difference.

Please read a tad more carefully, Mr. Lavo. My only stipulations are 1)
blind, and 2) level matched. The remainder of the test design (sans
unnecessary population sample size) is of your choosing.

You see, testing only yourself, Mr. Lavo, using proper controls, would be
sufficient to confirm the existence of the ability you claim. Your
failure to confirm such an ability could not be extrapolated to the
population, but that's not the intent. So what keeps you from doing just
that? I did, and my observed (and obvious) differences in
cables...disappeared.

Yep, so you bought the argument. Did you ever seriously question the
underlying premises of the test itself?

Once again, you assume, and falsely. The test I conducted was a simple
A-B comparison, blind, under the same conditions as I had conducted
*sighted*, and the difference disappeared. Note - this was *NOT* ABX,
and the ONLY difference was blinding. Ilustrative, no?

Did you ever think about the
difference in how you listened during the test, and how you listen when
relaxing and enjoying music?

There was no difference, your presupposition notwistanding.

Did you pause to consider that the ear/brain
function in *listening to music* is very complex and context-derived?

It was the *EXACT* same context. Blinding was the only difference.

If not, then you've bought into a faith.

Were I ungenerous, I would call this statement "projection". The
connotation should be clear.

But it is not science. If it was
truly science, it's advocates (not its skeptics) would be pushing to
absolutely, positively verify it. That has not happened.

Absurd. If "It* refers to ABX, then its advocates have the data on
their side, the skeptics have annecdotal maunderings, based on
demonstrably unreliable methodology (i.e. sighted testing), in rebuttal.

Having said all this, why do you dodge the basic question? Test
yourself, using whatever methods, over whatever interval, using whatever
scoring system you choose (with blind and level matched stipulated of
course). *ONE* positive result (i.e. you) where there is no known
mechanism for the observed difference, would validate the phenomenon. So
what's the problem?

Keith Hughes

In article ,
Mark DeBellis wrote:

On 28 Jun 2005 21:59:06 GMT, wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

We simply don't know that. Knowledge of the brain suggests they may be,
or
at the very least are different enough demands on the brain that the
"controlled conditions" where those conditions impose the need for
quick-switching, short-snippet, comparative choices interfere with normal
musical perception.

Then you would then agree that all musicians are unmusical because the
effort involved in just playing the right notes at the right time
(objective)
destroys their emotional perception of music. Playing all those right notes
at the right time also involves training, (read: rehersal, where
musicians break pieces up into parts, make exercises out of passages,
compare snippets of interpretive ideas played back to back and etc. and then
have to put it all back together) which is something else that you seem
to think destroys music.

I think it's absurd. Sorry.


I don't think it's so unusual for a musician, at least at some stage,
to feel that he/she has to get past a focus on technical issues (as
when learning a piece) and (re-)gain a sense of the flow of the music.
That is certainly my experience as an amateur pianist. Maybe once you
get good enough you transcend that, even when learning new pieces,
though it is worth noting that nobody spends six (or however many)
hours a day in a practice room doing audio tests for several years
(there is no Juilliard of audio tests, hm...). I imagine, though,
that the professional musician(s) following this thread have better
insights than this to offer!

Mark

On a professional level, there is very little effort spent on technique,
in the "difficult" sense of that word. OF COURSE there are exceptions
like certain piano works of Liszt, orchestral parts in some Stravinsky
and other 20th century composers, etc.

So yes, professional musicians at a certain level are thinking
expression, tone color and quality, interpretation, subtle shadings,
faithfullness to the composer/style/historical period, and so forth from
the very beginning of the rehearsal process. It is there that music is
really made. It's why millions know the name Yo Yo Ma, and many fewer
people know the name of the principal cellist of the Los Angeles
Philharmonic, even though he is an amazing, world class musician. It's
also why James Levine is a better, better known, and more wealthy
conductor than am I; he leads performances that are more expressive
than those that I lead.

That said, musicians, regardless of their stature, are ALWAYS working on
their technique, because it's a bit like working out. If it isn't
worked on, it goes downhill. What I'm speaking of here though is the
technique required to perform most literature, especially ensemble
literature. THAT is largely second nature, and the highly proficient
performer is able to work on expressing the music (the right brain part
of the activity, if you will) from the very start. In fact, that is the
most surprising thing to lesser musicians when they first are exposed to
really great ones up close; the apparent and utter EASE with which those
people read the notes in the music.

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 28 Jun 2005 21:59:06 GMT, wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

We simply don't know that. Knowledge of the brain suggests they may be, or
at the very least are different enough demands on the brain that the
"controlled conditions" where those conditions impose the need for
quick-switching, short-snippet, comparative choices interfere with normal
musical perception.

Then you would then agree that all musicians are unmusical because the
effort involved in just playing the right notes at the right time (objective)
destroys their emotional perception of music. Playing all those right notes
at the right time also involves training, (read: rehersal, where
musicians break pieces up into parts, make exercises out of passages,
compare snippets of interpretive ideas played back to back and etc. and then
have to put it all back together) which is something else that you seem
to think destroys music.

I think it's absurd. Sorry.


I don't think it's so unusual for a musician, at least at some stage,
to feel that he/she has to get past a focus on technical issues (as
when learning a piece) and (re-)gain a sense of the flow of the music.
That is certainly my experience as an amateur pianist. Maybe once you
get good enough you transcend that, even when learning new pieces,

That is somewhat correct, but it is a more dynamic situation than most think.
For example, in my professional musical work, (church organist and choir director
and occasional recital) there are always situations where you end up having
to sight read in public and make music of it. People forget to tell you that
you have to play this or that at the last minute and/or don't get you scores
on time. I don't like it and complain, but it doesn't do any good and always
happens again. You do get to be better sight reader though. ;-) There are even
sight reading competitions, and the American Guild of Organists (AGO) has three
graded levels of certificates where the goal is to show competence in such matters.
The highest level, called a fellowship, (FAGO) has improvisation tests on a given
theme, transposing to any key at sight and so on. It's quite rigorous. Some of
the people that earn these certificates are good at playing formal recitals, some
not. Conversely, some who excel at recitals are terrible sight readers, but
certainly not all, and in my experience, a minority. This all indicates to me
that saying objective activity is good or bad for music in the abstract sense
is not really helpful and of very limited value.

Another way to look at this is the case of memorization of scores. It's usually
a standard requirement and a rite of passage at the prestigous music schools these
days, but there is very little evidence that it actually results in better music.
The tradition was started by Liszt to add some extra showmanship to his early
concerts. Before that, the practice was indulged in very little. Brahms,
Beethoven and before that, Bach almost certainly played with score, unless
improvising, and in that case they would usually have sketches or themes written
out on the music rack. A jealous critic of Bach decried what he claimed was his
inability to play anything unless he had something written in front of him, which
wasn't really true, but it shows how strange ultra subjective (soliphism) tangents
can get.

Really good sight reading and transposing by sight is less of a mechanical
process and has more to do with associating what is on the page with the
appropriate sounds. IOW, ear training. It can take a long time!


though it is worth noting that nobody spends six (or however many)
hours a day in a practice room doing audio tests for several years
(there is no Juilliard of audio tests, hm...). I imagine, though,
that the professional musician(s) following this thread have better
insights than this to offer!

No proctor of scientific audio tests worth his salt would force tests on
fatigued subjects. (unless researching the effects of fatigue) Audio tests
are very different from musical 'tests' and should be to be meaningful.
They are technical because the reproduction of music is a technical process.
We wouldn't even have audio systems and would be unable to really improve
them (i.e. have control over the result) without a precise understanding the
technical process, the physics, and so on.

BTW, a old joke bandied about by Julliard graduates is that you
learn about music AFTER you leave Julliard.

This is too long. Sorry for the soapbox.

On 29 Jun 2005 03:56:06 GMT, wrote:

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


And I would suggest that a musician performing is more akin to an audiophile
taking a test, rather than one kicking back and simply experiencing the
music.

Based on all the other things you've said, you're now saying that
musicians don't experience fully the emotions in music.

What an interesting question. My own 2 cents, as a performance
amateur, is that it is experience of the emotions from a different
perspective. The performer is concerned with projecting a certain
expressive content to the audience. It is perhaps something like the
actor's job of projecting a character to the audience in a play. The
performer's experience of the expressive character he/she is trying to
project will not be the same as the audience's, because normally what
the audience is doing is receiving the projection rather than thinking
about how to create it. I doubt that the performer can lose an
awareness of the craft involved. At the same time, a performer's
awareness of expressive nuance, after practicing a piece many times,
is different from, more intimate than, that of a listener who hears
the piece for the first time at a concert, say. That is partly why
the experience of learning to play a piece oneself is often so
different from that of listening to a recording.

(Which is not to say that there is no difference between listening to
a recording once and listening to it for the n'th time.)

Mark

Harry Lavo wrote:

You can't use the test you believe might be inaccurate to validate itself.
Think about it.

Why don't YOU find out how the mechanism works? You have no idea how silly
it is to endlessly critique a theory that you've apparently never studied
and don't understand.

It's high time YOU do some thinking.

BTW, I'm getting weary of saying 'apparently.' Why don't you say flat out
that you've studied how partial loudness works or not? I think I know the
answer. Show me I'm wrong.

Harry Lavbo said:

And I would suggest that a musician performing is more akin to an audiophile
taking a test, rather than one kicking back and simply experiencing the
music.

That is the most incredible thing I think you've ver said, and the most
grossly incorrect.

It demonstrates clearly that you have never ever mastered in any way,
any kind of instrument, at any level.

I have know musicians of varying degreesd and musical forms, and all of
them, every single one, is only fully alive when playing.

Just look at Jazz musicians and how much they improv, and tell me the
looks on their faces when they all know they are jamming well, do not
reflect emotional pleasure.

Mark DeBellis wrote:
At the same time, a performer's
awareness of expressive nuance, after practicing a piece many times,
is different from, more intimate than, that of a listener who hears
the piece for the first time at a concert, say.

A lot depends on who is listening. Listeners have mixed backgrounds and
experiences.

Accompanying congregational singing in a church is very enlightening in
this regard. The organist is the leader and you HAVE to keep a rock steady
tempo with articulations mostly biased towards emphasizing the strong
beats of a measure with only a bit of a retard for the last verse, even
though perhaps the melody and harmony may suggest otherwise. If not,
everybody tends to go their own way and it degrades the overall experience,
which can be overwhelming with hundreds of people singing 4 part harmony well
in a very reverberant church. And I'm not religious.

One phenomenon that often happens to soloists who do a lot of practicing
alone (not much accompanying or playing with others) is what I call
'overinterpretation,' where the intent of the composer gets very distorted
and subject to the excessive whims of the performer. That's not a part of my
philosophy. For an example, listen to Wolfgang Rubsam playing Bach organ
works where fragments of motifs, themes and harmonic progressions that are
personally meaningful to him are dwelled upon with aggogic accents and the
tactus is completely lost. It's not that he can't keep a steady beat as his
technique is bountiful. The fact that he really believes in what he is
doing makes it convincing to some. I've been there and experimented with the
same. But it tends to be a self indulgent morrass because the emphasis is
more on the performer and less on the music that is being played. There are
a lot of advantages to keeping a steady tempo, being judicious with
rubato, and making efforts to project the integrity of the composers intent.

"Ban" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

My guess is that this is why white noise testing and volume
differences are picked us so readily in these tests. They are
simplistic and continuous.

Music and musical reproduction, on the other hand, .........

No Harry, just the opposite. Noise is the most complicated signal there
is.
The next point is by definition unpredictable. Music is fixed pattern
repeated frequencies. You already know what the next tone will be, once
you
have learned the pattern.
Noise will be always different, still its character is always according to
the distribution. With music you have problems to rate a speaker, too much
midrange and the violins sound really good, or whatever.
Noise will expose the "signature" of the speaker, cart, turntable or
whatever gives a colouration. It is like clear water.
Of course if you are a Whisky drinker, somebody giving you clear water,
you
will be disgusted. But clear water will give you the highest sensitivity
of
any addition in taste, the Whiskey has too much taste by itself and covers
certain subtle differences.
So if you want to test if the glass is clean you will take water. You do
not
need to drink it a whole week, just the first sip will give you already
most
of the information. You are right, the Whisky drinker will take longer for
the same evaluation, that is why after each glass he changes. Wodka, Coke,
Orange juice, Coffee... all his favourite pieces he puts in the glass, he
will get high and forget about the testing. With clear water it would have
been immediately.
I know you understand food testing, so I gave this example.

Thank you, Ban. I think I also understand a bit about audio after being
immersed in it since I was 8 years old.

No doubt white noise reveals frequency response variation. That is
selective volume difference that are frequency dependent. And it also helps
reveal volume differences even if there is no frequency response difference.
But ther is much more to music than frequency response and volume
differences....and in these areas it becomes harder and harder for ABX
testing to discriminate (we are not talking codecs and distortion artifacts
here, we are talking music). Conversely, it is relatively easy to sense
"somthing wrong" (if it is) or "something inferior" (if it is) or "something
sublime" (if it is) in a new piece of gear after long term listening to
music.

wrote in message
...
Harry Lavbo said:

And I would suggest that a musician performing is more akin to an
audiophile
taking a test, rather than one kicking back and simply experiencing the
music.

That is the most incredible thing I think you've ver said, and the most
grossly incorrect.

It demonstrates clearly that you have never ever mastered in any way,
any kind of instrument, at any level.

I have know musicians of varying degreesd and musical forms, and all of
them, every single one, is only fully alive when playing.

Just look at Jazz musicians and how much they improv, and tell me the
looks on their faces when they all know they are jamming well, do not
reflect emotional pleasure.

Actually what I had intended to say was that a musician "practicing" is more
akin... but I blew it.

There is a big difference when a musician is preparing a new piece (which is
really what I was referring to) and when they have mastered the piece and
are really into the enjoyment of playing it.

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

We simply don't know that. Knowledge of the brain suggests they may
be,
or
at the very least are different enough demands on the brain that the
"controlled conditions" where those conditions impose the need for
quick-switching, short-snippet, comparative choices interfere with
normal
musical perception.

Then you would then agree that all musicians are unmusical because the
effort involved in just playing the right notes at the right time
(objective)
destroys their emotional perception of music. Playing all those right
notes
at the right time also involves training, (read: rehersal, where
musicians break pieces up into parts, make exercises out of passages,
compare snippets of interpretive ideas played back to back and etc. and
then
have to put it all back together) which is something else that you seem
to think destroys music.

I think it's absurd. Sorry.

And I would suggest that a musician performing is more akin to an
audiophile
taking a test, rather than one kicking back and simply experiencing the
music.

Based on all the other things you've said, you're now saying that
musicians don't experience fully the emotions in music.


When musicians are practicing and drilling themselves, they are as intent,
purposeful, and hard at work as any other person doing the tasks that create
a livlihood. That doesn't mean that musicians don't love music, or thrill
when an ensemble starts speaking as one voice, or get off on hearing others
of their craft play. It does mean that when they are "drilling" themselves,
as you suggest above, they cannot be and are not in that state. Once they
have mastered the material and can begin to relax, then they can immerse
more of themselves back into the emotional content of the music.

Until and unless you've had a good friend who is a world-class professional
musician, you can't possible conceive of how hard and purposefully they work
at it. It is not at all the same as relaxed listening for enjoyment, which
is how we use our hi-fi's or employ when we attend a concert.


I think it's clear you're simply just enjoying being an iconoclast.
That's
all about you have to offer.


Think what you like. I base my perceptions on the patterns I see in the
world, and make up my own mind, which nature endowed with a fairly highly
developed thinking function. Jung called this type of person an INTJ.
Meyers-Briggs confirms that pattern for me.

Have fun.

I am, expecially since I've been able to retire. Are you. :-)

"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

snip, not particularly relevant
...

Again, YOU are restricting the methodology to ABX (whose efficacy you
doubt, for what I believe are obvious reasons). The "method" I address in
the above paragraph is *yours*, so the point you attempt to make is
clearly misguided. You mistrust ABX. Fine, use your own methods, just
incorporate blind and level matched. Simple really.

I think you are projecting something onto me. The monadic testing I propose
would be blind and would be level matched. It would simply be two
representative groups of people listening to music and rating the system's
sound when reproducing that music. After that, it is all statistics.





Luckily, however, you already have a population subset, yourself
included, who claim to possess an attribute (i.e. who can distinguish,
sighted, the differences within a myriad of devices believed by many to
be indistiguishable, and believe that those differences are *real* and
reproducible), and thus the test need only involve that subset. Conduct
the test among the identified subset, construct the test to utilize blind
controls and level matching, then test in whatever manner, using whatever
scoring system, and for whatever period, you wish. Perform sufficient
replicates to generate a statistically valid data set, and you're done.


You can't use the test you believe might be inaccurate to validate
itself. Think about it.

Are you purposely misunderstanding me? YOU are proposing the test under
discussion, and it is *NOT* ABX. Do you now argue against yourself?

I'm sorry, you are right, I did not read the above accurately. The basic
problem is numbers. The kind of monadic testing I propose can only be done
once. Therefore you need large numbers. I would certain screen for
audiophiles if I really wanted to understand the phenomenon, and then look
at "believers" and "non-believers" diagnostically as subgroups. If the
differences exist statistically, it would be useful to know if they also
esisted statistically among the "non-believers", and if not why not. No,
I'm not purposively misunderstanding you. But if you are proposing a
monadic test with repetition like an ABX test, then you don't totally
undertstand what I have proposed.




Will this be universally transferrable to the whole population? No, but
again, that's irrelevant. It will, however, identify whether there is
such an attribute (ability to distinguish cable differences for e.g.)
within the *ONLY* population subset of interest. There is no utility in
testing outside that subset until the existence of the 'peceived'
attribute is confirmed, or not.


See my comments above. There is utility to expanding it to include a
cross-section of audiophiles, and maybe even the population in general ...
as an educational tool. Hoever, for purposes of proving if a difference
exists, you are right...hard core "believing" audiophiles can be the core
group. But...big but..where do I find 400 or more such animals and corral
them into one place. Yeah, yeah, I know....HE2006....


Again you miss the basic point. The test is not *PROVEN* to work for all
conditions of perceived sonic difference.

Please read a tad more carefully, Mr. Lavo. My only stipulations are 1)
blind, and 2) level matched. The remainder of the test design (sans
unnecessary population sample size) is of your choosing.


I do apologize.


You see, testing only yourself, Mr. Lavo, using proper controls, would be
sufficient to confirm the existence of the ability you claim. Your
failure to confirm such an ability could not be extrapolated to the
population, but that's not the intent. So what keeps you from doing just
that? I did, and my observed (and obvious) differences in
cables...disappeared

Unfortunately, the best test for determine if there is an "objective"
subjective difference requires a larger population and is not a self-test.
But it could stand as a tool to evaluate such self-tests.
...

Yep, so you bought the argument. Did you ever seriously question the
underlying premises of the test itself?

Once again, you assume, and falsely. The test I conducted was a simple
A-B comparison, blind, under the same conditions as I had conducted
*sighted*, and the difference disappeared. Note - this was *NOT* ABX, and
the ONLY difference was blinding. Ilustrative, no?


The thread started out as ABX, and again I do apologize.


Did you ever think about the difference in how you listened during the
test, and how you listen when relaxing and enjoying music?

There was no difference, your presupposition notwistanding.

Did you pause to consider that the ear/brain function in *listening to
music* is very complex and context-derived?

It was the *EXACT* same context. Blinding was the only difference.

If not, then you've bought into a faith.

Were I ungenerous, I would call this statement "projection". The
connotation should be clear.

Their is "faith" on both sides. But one masks as science, the other as
scepticism. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.



But it is not science. If it was truly science, it's advocates (not its
skeptics) would be pushing to absolutely, positively verify it. That has
not happened.

Absurd. If "It* refers to ABX, then its advocates have the data on their
side, the skeptics have annecdotal maunderings, based on demonstrably
unreliable methodology (i.e. sighted testing), in rebuttal.

They have "data" but not necessarily valid data. They do not have
"subjective" data. And they do not have data based on relaxed,
non-comparative testing.



Having said all this, why do you dodge the basic question? Test yourself,
using whatever methods, over whatever interval, using whatever scoring
system you choose (with blind and level matched stipulated of course).
*ONE* positive result (i.e. you) where there is no known mechanism for the
observed difference, would validate the phenomenon. So what's the problem?

Because the test that could start to put all this behind us does not lend
itself to single-person tests.

On 25 Jun 2005 02:25:16 GMT, wrote:

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.

Only if the test has the following property: if there is a difference
then the test is likely to detect it.

Otherwise an accumulation of cases doesn't support the conclusion any
better than a single instance.

Mark

On 29 Jun 2005 01:08:00 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Did you pause to consider that the ear/brain
function in *listening to music* is very complex and context-derived? If
not, then you've bought into a faith. But it is not science. If it was
truly science, it's advocates (not its skeptics) would be pushing to
absolutely, positively verify it. That has not happened.

Just a remark about the logic of the controversy without an attempt to
take sides here. The proponent of ABX (etc.) testing shouldn't want
to deny that music cognition is a very complex affair. What he/she
argues, or should argue, is that the following principle is very
plausible: no perceptual difference without a difference to which the
testing is sensitive. (In other words, a supervenience principle.)
Such a principle does *not* commit one to the idea that everything
that a person perceives outside of the testing situation will be
perceived in the testing situation. What it does say is that there is
a dependence relation between the former and the latter such that if
there is a difference in the former then a difference in the latter is
likely to be detected.

So, for example, suppose you are looking at one of those visual
patterns where it looks like there is a boundary in a certain place
but actually there is none; it is an illusion created by the visual
system. And in another copy of the same book there is the same
pattern. If someone is able to verify that the copies are
pixel-for-pixel identical, exactly the same in detail, then it is
extremely plausible that one will create the illusion just in case the
other does; and it is not necessary here that the person doing the
checking should experience the illusion him- or herself, in order to
come up with a reliable answer. (The person may be looking too
closely to get the illusion to work.) The perceptual properties of
the pattern supervene on the pixel properties (which are a subset of
them), though someone who is concentrating on the pixel properties may
not be in a position to perceive some of the perceptual properties.

Maybe the point is already clear to others but I thought it was worth
making. The supervenience principle is a crucial element in the
ABX-proponent's argument and perhaps that is what the anti-ABXer is
basically questioning.

Mark

On 29 Jun 2005 15:15:26 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Mark DeBellis wrote:

I don't think it's so unusual for a musician, at least at some stage,
to feel that he/she has to get past a focus on technical issues (as
when learning a piece) and (re-)gain a sense of the flow of the music.
That is certainly my experience as an amateur pianist. Maybe once you
get good enough you transcend that, even when learning new pieces...

Mark

On a professional level, there is very little effort spent on technique,
in the "difficult" sense of that word. OF COURSE there are exceptions
like certain piano works of Liszt, orchestral parts in some Stravinsky
and other 20th century composers, etc.

So yes, professional musicians at a certain level are thinking
expression, tone color and quality, interpretation, subtle shadings,
faithfullness to the composer/style/historical period, and so forth from
the very beginning of the rehearsal process. It is there that music is
really made. It's why millions know the name Yo Yo Ma, and many fewer
people know the name of the principal cellist of the Los Angeles
Philharmonic, even though he is an amazing, world class musician. It's
also why James Levine is a better, better known, and more wealthy
conductor than am I; he leads performances that are more expressive
than those that I lead.

That said, musicians, regardless of their stature, are ALWAYS working on
their technique, because it's a bit like working out. If it isn't
worked on, it goes downhill. What I'm speaking of here though is the
technique required to perform most literature, especially ensemble
literature. THAT is largely second nature, and the highly proficient
performer is able to work on expressing the music (the right brain part
of the activity, if you will) from the very start. In fact, that is the
most surprising thing to lesser musicians when they first are exposed to
really great ones up close; the apparent and utter EASE with which those
people read the notes in the music.

That's interesting. How about from the standpoint of the conductor,
in performance? My idea is that sometimes you would be concentrating
on things that the listener wouldn't need to think about, or even
would be well advised not to think about. Suppose in order to bring
about a smooth ritard in a certain place it is necessary to subdivide
in one's head, counting one-and-two-and, etc. The conductor needs to
do that, but I would think that their counting here prevents a full
experience, on their part, of the expansive effect the listener is
intended to get. The sacrifices musicians make for their art! What
do you think?

Mark

In article ,
Mark DeBellis wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 15:15:26 GMT, Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Mark DeBellis wrote:

I don't think it's so unusual for a musician, at least at some stage,
to feel that he/she has to get past a focus on technical issues (as
when learning a piece) and (re-)gain a sense of the flow of the music.
That is certainly my experience as an amateur pianist. Maybe once you
get good enough you transcend that, even when learning new pieces...

Mark

On a professional level, there is very little effort spent on technique,
in the "difficult" sense of that word. OF COURSE there are exceptions
like certain piano works of Liszt, orchestral parts in some Stravinsky
and other 20th century composers, etc.

So yes, professional musicians at a certain level are thinking
expression, tone color and quality, interpretation, subtle shadings,
faithfullness to the composer/style/historical period, and so forth from
the very beginning of the rehearsal process. It is there that music is
really made. It's why millions know the name Yo Yo Ma, and many fewer
people know the name of the principal cellist of the Los Angeles
Philharmonic, even though he is an amazing, world class musician. It's
also why James Levine is a better, better known, and more wealthy
conductor than am I; he leads performances that are more expressive
than those that I lead.

That said, musicians, regardless of their stature, are ALWAYS working on
their technique, because it's a bit like working out. If it isn't
worked on, it goes downhill. What I'm speaking of here though is the
technique required to perform most literature, especially ensemble
literature. THAT is largely second nature, and the highly proficient
performer is able to work on expressing the music (the right brain part
of the activity, if you will) from the very start. In fact, that is the
most surprising thing to lesser musicians when they first are exposed to
really great ones up close; the apparent and utter EASE with which those
people read the notes in the music.

That's interesting. How about from the standpoint of the conductor,
in performance? My idea is that sometimes you would be concentrating
on things that the listener wouldn't need to think about, or even
would be well advised not to think about. Suppose in order to bring
about a smooth ritard in a certain place it is necessary to subdivide
in one's head, counting one-and-two-and, etc. The conductor needs to
do that, but I would think that their counting here prevents a full
experience, on their part, of the expansive effect the listener is
intended to get. The sacrifices musicians make for their art! What
do you think?

Yes, what you postulate is true to some extent. Even when a conductor
or other musician listens from the audience, it is sometimes difficult
to just sit back and "let the music take you." If you know the work
being performed, you know the potential stumbling blocks that are ahead,
for example. "Oh gosh, here comes that low Bb in the oboe
part...careful ....CAREFUL.... Oh! Nice job!" (BTW, I think that
stereo listeners tend to do the same thing! "Here comes that great bass
drum!") As to the physical act of conducting, we have "chops" just like
an instrumentalist or singer, and for the most part, it's quite second
nature during performance, presuming that the ensemble is well prepared.
So the subdividing place comes along, and it's sort of autopilot. And
if the conductor is good and the ensemble is well prepared, the
communication between the two is such that it will be slightly different
each time, so even in the planned ahead subdivision place, it is
spontaneous, thus allowing the performers (including the conductor) to
have a musical "moment". Except in moments of lack of preparation, we
still "feel it."

Two quick examples might be illustrative: Recently there was a NY Phil
performance on PBS on "Live at Lincoln Center". Maazel, the regular
conductor, was ill, so the very fine David Robertson came and stepped in
at the last moment. As great as he is, and as great as the NYPhil is,
one could easily see that they were all having to concentrate harder
than is normal, especially in the Stravinsky Firebird, and it showed in
the performance; tentative, unsure, lack of great expression, etc. They
didn't have the "comfort zone" of having rehearsed all week together,
and it showed. They were, as you allude to, thinking less about the
MUSIC and were forced to think more of the technique, and you could tell
that they weren't digging it!

On the other hand, Bernstein's children tell stories of when their Dad
would come home from concerts in Vienna. He would say, "It was
unbelievable...I WAS Mahler...I WAS the 3rd Symphony!" The kids would
look at each other and say, under their breaths, "He moved himself
again.." Clearly, Bernstein was in the moment, dealing with being
expressive, etc, and was beyond of technique of either his conducting or
the playing.

I hope that this addresses what you were asking...thanks for asking! :-)

Harry Lavo wrote:

When musicians are practicing and drilling themselves, they are as intent,
purposeful, and hard at work as any other person doing the tasks that create
a livlihood. That doesn't mean that musicians don't love music, or thrill
when an ensemble starts speaking as one voice, or get off on hearing others
of their craft play. It does mean that when they are "drilling" themselves,
as you suggest above, they cannot be and are not in that state. Once they
have mastered the material and can begin to relax, then they can immerse
more of themselves back into the emotional content of the music.

You have little idea. Proper practice techniques are not full of stress and
devoid of incorporating the interprtation in the music. Ever hear of slow
practice? Most musicians don't do it enough because they don't have the
patience. Ever read any of the top pedagogical methods?

And what about improvisation? Although the categories of it are almost
innumerable, some of them, such as countrpuntal styles are hard work
while doing them. Under your all encompassing presumptions, this in itself
makes all those umusical, even if you like counterpoint.


Until and unless you've had a good friend who is a world-class professional
musician, you can't possible conceive of how hard and purposefully they work
at it.

You're implied assumptions are breahtaking. You know less than zilch about my
background.

You would be amazed at some musicians who get classified as 'world
class' (whatever that means - there is a difference between 'world class' and
'high profile') that don't practice enough and it sounds like it.


It is not at all the same as relaxed listening for enjoyment, which
is how we use our hi-fi's or employ when we attend a concert.

Whose 'we?'


Think what you like. I base my perceptions on the patterns I see in the
world, and make up my own mind, which nature endowed with a fairly highly
developed thinking function. Jung called this type of person an INTJ.
Meyers-Briggs confirms that pattern for me.

Only a fool would put stock in an implied online psychological diagnoses.
Only a fool does them.


I am, expecially since I've been able to retire. Are you. :-)

There you go again. (work is bad and it's not fun) Feh.

"Mark DeBellis" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On 25 Jun 2005 02:25:16 GMT, wrote:

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.

Only if the test has the following property: if there is a difference
then the test is likely to detect it.

Otherwise an accumulation of cases doesn't support the conclusion any
better than a single instance.

Mark

I mean we should discuss how to do a test at home, like you said you did.
Gary Eickmeyer has described the procedure in another mail(THX for that). I
do not think you need to go into how many beats minimum you need to
recognize the rhythm pattern, but you switch whenever you feel like.
The difficult thing is to synchronize the sources, to match the levels and
to construct that switchbox. I think somebody with experience might maybe
provide some useful information or links, I unfortunately do not have these
things at hand, sorry.
When we encourage each other to experiment ourselves, we might gain more
insight than to theoretically construct some mind game and continue to argue
based on the same construct...

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

On 30 Jun 2005 16:16:36 GMT, Jenn wrote:


Yes, what you postulate is true to some extent. Even when a conductor
or other musician listens from the audience, it is sometimes difficult
to just sit back and "let the music take you." If you know the work
being performed, you know the potential stumbling blocks that are ahead,
for example. "Oh gosh, here comes that low Bb in the oboe
part...careful ....CAREFUL.... Oh! Nice job!" (BTW, I think that
stereo listeners tend to do the same thing! "Here comes that great bass
drum!") As to the physical act of conducting, we have "chops" just like
an instrumentalist or singer, and for the most part, it's quite second
nature during performance, presuming that the ensemble is well prepared.
So the subdividing place comes along, and it's sort of autopilot. And
if the conductor is good and the ensemble is well prepared, the
communication between the two is such that it will be slightly different
each time, so even in the planned ahead subdivision place, it is
spontaneous, thus allowing the performers (including the conductor) to
have a musical "moment". Except in moments of lack of preparation, we
still "feel it."

Two quick examples might be illustrative: Recently there was a NY Phil
performance on PBS on "Live at Lincoln Center". Maazel, the regular
conductor, was ill, so the very fine David Robertson came and stepped in
at the last moment. As great as he is, and as great as the NYPhil is,
one could easily see that they were all having to concentrate harder
than is normal, especially in the Stravinsky Firebird, and it showed in
the performance; tentative, unsure, lack of great expression, etc. They
didn't have the "comfort zone" of having rehearsed all week together,
and it showed. They were, as you allude to, thinking less about the
MUSIC and were forced to think more of the technique, and you could tell
that they weren't digging it!

On the other hand, Bernstein's children tell stories of when their Dad
would come home from concerts in Vienna. He would say, "It was
unbelievable...I WAS Mahler...I WAS the 3rd Symphony!" The kids would
look at each other and say, under their breaths, "He moved himself
again.." Clearly, Bernstein was in the moment, dealing with being
expressive, etc, and was beyond of technique of either his conducting or
the playing.

I hope that this addresses what you were asking...thanks for asking! :-)

Thanks, those are beautiful examples. :-)

Sometimes I worry about whether thinking analytically while one is
listening, like in terms of Schenkerian analysis or other music
theory, can be distracting in the way I was supposing the subdivision
could be distracting, or like the way you say the stumbling block Bb
can be distracting. But maybe that's just me.

Mark

In article ,
Mark DeBellis wrote:

On 30 Jun 2005 16:16:36 GMT, Jenn wrote:


Yes, what you postulate is true to some extent. Even when a conductor
or other musician listens from the audience, it is sometimes difficult
to just sit back and "let the music take you." If you know the work
being performed, you know the potential stumbling blocks that are ahead,
for example. "Oh gosh, here comes that low Bb in the oboe
part...careful ....CAREFUL.... Oh! Nice job!" (BTW, I think that
stereo listeners tend to do the same thing! "Here comes that great bass
drum!") As to the physical act of conducting, we have "chops" just like
an instrumentalist or singer, and for the most part, it's quite second
nature during performance, presuming that the ensemble is well prepared.
So the subdividing place comes along, and it's sort of autopilot. And
if the conductor is good and the ensemble is well prepared, the
communication between the two is such that it will be slightly different
each time, so even in the planned ahead subdivision place, it is
spontaneous, thus allowing the performers (including the conductor) to
have a musical "moment". Except in moments of lack of preparation, we
still "feel it."

Two quick examples might be illustrative: Recently there was a NY Phil
performance on PBS on "Live at Lincoln Center". Maazel, the regular
conductor, was ill, so the very fine David Robertson came and stepped in
at the last moment. As great as he is, and as great as the NYPhil is,
one could easily see that they were all having to concentrate harder
than is normal, especially in the Stravinsky Firebird, and it showed in
the performance; tentative, unsure, lack of great expression, etc. They
didn't have the "comfort zone" of having rehearsed all week together,
and it showed. They were, as you allude to, thinking less about the
MUSIC and were forced to think more of the technique, and you could tell
that they weren't digging it!

On the other hand, Bernstein's children tell stories of when their Dad
would come home from concerts in Vienna. He would say, "It was
unbelievable...I WAS Mahler...I WAS the 3rd Symphony!" The kids would
look at each other and say, under their breaths, "He moved himself
again.." Clearly, Bernstein was in the moment, dealing with being
expressive, etc, and was beyond of technique of either his conducting or
the playing.

I hope that this addresses what you were asking...thanks for asking! :-)

Thanks, those are beautiful examples. :-)

Sometimes I worry about whether thinking analytically while one is
listening, like in terms of Schenkerian analysis or other music
theory, can be distracting in the way I was supposing the subdivision
could be distracting, or like the way you say the stumbling block Bb
can be distracting. But maybe that's just me.

Mark

Yeah, I kind of think that it DOES tend to be distracting (thinking
Schenker, etc.) For me, music is an emotional experience, and heavy
duty analysis distracts me from that. Other people think differently,
of course.

On 29 Jun 2005 14:58:42 GMT, Mark DeBellis wrote:

My intuition ... is that it is easier
to tell if it's slowing down than if it's speeding up, but I don't
know if that's actually true.


My highly placed sources tell me that I was wrong about that.
Increases in tempo are, I am told, easier to hear than decreases.
Sorry. So much for my intuitions!

Mark

Ban said:
I mean we should discuss how to do a test at home, like you said you did.

Hi Ban, Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about how to set this
up. Maybe it is possible to do it on the computer with a music
notation program and MIDI output.

Mark

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 25 Jun 2005 02:25:16 GMT, wrote:

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.

Only if the test has the following property: if there is a difference
then the test is likely to detect it.

Otherwise an accumulation of cases doesn't support the conclusion any
better than a single instance.

Fair point. That's why it's always essential to choose the right test
for the job. Fortunately, in the case of listening tests, we have a
substantial body of research to reassure us that the test we are using
is, indeed, likely to detect any difference that is audible.

Someone will now deny this. He is wrong.

bob

Jenn wrote:

Yeah, I kind of think that it DOES tend to be distracting (thinking
Schenker, etc.) For me, music is an emotional experience, and heavy
duty analysis distracts me from that. Other people think differently,
of course.

I'm not familiar with how you conduct, but in most cases, it seems that
conducting is what happens in rehersal. I don't do Schenker on the fly,
in the learning stage, as it's just too much information happening at
once, but I find it helpful when taking a piece apart statically so I can
understand its structure better.

Mark DeBellis wrote:
I have the following worry about audio listening tests. Suppose the
meaningful variable is a property of an extended passage, not a short
snippet. Then a subject's failure to accurately distinguish or
re-identify may be due to an inability to retain the property in
memory.


You have a very good point. It's a shame that so many people here
responded only to try to show how you are wrong.

Some very important musical percepts correspond to diffuse patterns in
the music; form, for example. These patterns work on most listeners;
but generally it is only the more experienced listeners who have become
*conscious* of how these patterns work.

Actually even in local patterns--the local beat, or timbre--it takes
time and the proper context to stimulate the corresponding musical
precepts. And listening tests that compare only "short snippets," as
you say, don't provide that time and context.

A test subject will certainly have difficulty remembering these
percepts. Consider that animals and humans need to have a good memory
for objects in the world that correspond to direct sensation. The more
abstract the percept becomes, the less need evolution had to equip
creatures with memory for it. There's some need to remember internal
states like emotions; less need to remember something more abstract
like the degree and quality of the emotion.

Another difficulty comes in the subject's attempt to conceptualize and
then externalize the percept. To conceptualize: to label the
experience. And to externalize: to convey that label to the
experimenter. Zen meditators know, for example, that conceptualizing an
experience collapses it into a limited number of states.

In the test subject, lack of consciousness of the diffuse percepts
works against being able to identify them with confidence; the demand
of the experiment that the experience be conceptualized provides
further difficultues; and the clumsiness of the experimentor with
regard to how the test "paradigm" influences the result, all work
against the validity of the result.

Helen