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


Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory.
And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account?

What place should emotion play in audio testing? Audio is science,
music is art as Stewart like to say. This is in fact the truth, but
how your emotion work on hearing music that science has allowed to
passed on to you is your affair. The science is to get what the artist
and the recording engineers decided was the way they thought would
convey the art to best effect.

The audio scientists do their very best to make sure that they are
able to do that with the utmost fidelity to the master that the artist
and engineers decided upon.

For me, as an audiophile and a music lover, I have striven to own a
system that is faithful to their intention. I see no reason to
re-engineer their vision. This would be like going to a concert and
insisting they perform in accordance with My wishes rather than those
who create the music.

Your whole argument gets blown out of the water when you realize that a
lot of musicians and engineers feel that *analog* is truer to their
intentions.

I'm not arguing analog is the superior medium in an absolute sense; but
relative to the specific qualities of sound which many people wish to
reproduce accurately, analog is superior.

If that makes the world a little harder for you to explain, well you
are going to have to live with that. (Or you could keep making
arguments out of ignorance; your choice.)

Mike



As audiophiles we have the ability to construct a system that conforms
to our vision or to the artist and engineer's. I have to much respect
for art to try and rearrange it.

It is my view that they have been able to this within the limitations
of the medium, although, that medium is improving by virtue of more
channels and digital recording which allows us to get every single
nuance of the master agreed on by the artist and the engineer.

The science has given us them the ability to preserve it on media that
is vastly easier to store, to archive, and to maintain.

Shouldn't we out of respect for all that work try our level best not
to screw it up with equipment that distorts or alters what they spent
their time trying to communicate?

Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:

snip

I find the above statement to be quite astonishing. Clearly we could not
explain certain phemonema, such as the photoelectric effect, if we were
to investigate light as a wave. It was this "troublesome" observation
that led to the theory that light has to be considered as particles
also. Similarly, treating light as particles also leads to very
troublesome observations that cannot be explained by the particle theory
alone. This is freshman physics stuff, no?


Point 1, it seems like you haven't come to terms with the paradox of
quantum mechanics.

Clearly, *you* have not understood it. See below...

Point 2, Yes, observing light in many different
contexts led to some difficult observations that required the wider
theory to explain.

The crux of the quantum uncertainty / duality issue is well illustrated
by Heisenbergs' uncertainty principle. At the quantum level, the *act*
of observation does not change our *perception* of reality, it actually
changes *reality*. If one measures the position of an electron, for
e.g., the physical intrusiveness of the measurement affects its nature
to a degree such that its velocity cannot be ascertained. Same situation
for photonic observations re. particle/wave duality.

However, point 2A, the brain is *much* more
complicated than a photon;

A statement whose lack of profundity is exceeded only by its irrelevancy.

point 2B, it has *not* been investigated in
a wide set of contexts. It has been investigated in *one* context for
all practical purposes.

For this whole analogy to have any relevance, you would have to be
asserting that the *act* of listening changes, not perception, but the
physical construction or configuration of the sound waves hitting your
eardrum. Is this your assertion?


You have only investigated the ear/brain under one set of conditions.
Of course you don't have anything you can't explain!

Mike

In other words, if you were to look for flying elephants, you have to
investigate other *possible* ways to observe flying elephants, not
simply with your eyes or with optical instruments. There is that
eye/brain interaction that you cannot overlook!


You sure do like to bring in the "flying elephants." Let's say we have
a hypothetical creature X and we really don't know if it can fly or
not. Let's say that we attempt to decide this question solely on the
basis of *one* experiment: pushing it off a 30 foot cliff and checking
if it survives.

Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After
we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and
determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff.
The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That
*one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis
previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit).


I understand your argument here, and I understand that if you truly
believe this to be an accurate analogy for what has taken place, then I
can see why you have faith in the answers of psychoacoustic science.

However, your argument can be answered on multiple levels:

(1) A single experiment is not sufficient to verify a theory developed
completely on analytical grounds.

(2) Science doesn't work this way, anyhow. Theory and observation are
intermingled. When the "bioengineering analysis" itself it based on
other observations---and ALL those observations were made in the
context of creature X falling off a cliff--then the whole structure
becomes suspect. At least we can say it is an accurate model of X
falling off a cliff, but its generality is left open to question.

(3) The chameleon nature of consciousness makes most of these physical
analogies inadaquate.

And finally, Chung's favorite analogy to "flying elephants" is a
distortion of my arguments. I suppose he thinks I'm making some
*specific* claim of the ear's capabilities; for example, the ability to
distinguish two cables. What I'm *actually* doing is asking how we
would determine if A and B sound different, for *any* A and B. And I'm
pointing out that the objectivists use a poor method for determining
this.

Mike

wrote:

That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts.

*Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context.

Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small,
rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears.

The trouble is, you haven't provided us with any other "context" in
which we might usefully investigate hearing. When you do so, then we'll
have something to talk about.

bob

wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

snip

Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After
we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and
determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff.
The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That
*one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis
previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit).

I understand your argument here, and I understand that if you truly
believe this to be an accurate analogy for what has taken place, then I
can see why you have faith in the answers of psychoacoustic science.

Yes, I believe it is an accurate analogy. It, like all other aspects of
scientific inquiry, relies on the preponderance of evidence,
understanding that *everything* will never be fully recognized or
delineated. If, OTOH, you believe your analogy to be accurate, you need
to do *Much* more to address the obvious implication that *no* prior
analyses have been performed. A rather Herculean task it would appear.

However, your argument can be answered on multiple levels:

Really? Let's see...

(1) A single experiment is not sufficient to verify a theory developed
completely on analytical grounds.

Complete nonsense. "One" test typically incorporates multiple
challenges, or iterations, and is wholly sufficient to verify, *sans
contravening data*, that the theory is acceptable. Note the caveat please.


(2) Science doesn't work this way, anyhow. Theory and observation are
intermingled.

No, they are not "intermingled". Theories are generated to explain
observations, period. The converse is not true, although you seem not
to understand that simple principle.

When the "bioengineering analysis" itself it based on
other observations

I.e., observations of flight-capable creatures, the population of
interest, clearly, so...?

---and ALL those observations were made in the
context of creature X falling off a cliff

You are clearly befuddled as to the relationship of cause and effect.
*None* of the observations are made "in the context of creature X
falling off a cliff". The cliff diving is merely the methodology
employed for verification of previously performed analyses. The test
(cliff diving) follows *as a result of* the biomechanical analyses,
providing emprical confirmation. Conflating the two displays a basic
misunderstanding of the scientific method.

--then the whole structure
becomes suspect. At least we can say it is an accurate model of X
falling off a cliff, but its generality is left open to question.

When you misconstrue the basic construction of reality, then yes, *your*
results are suspect.

(3) The chameleon nature of consciousness makes most of these physical
analogies inadaquate.

Ah, yes, here again we have the old standby; "consciousness is so
complex that it cannot be modeled". Another way of saying that nothing
is ever certain, therefore all things are possible. A marvelous example
of pre-deluvian logic.

I notice, Mark, that in two responses to the same post, you failed, in
both, to answer the final questions I posed. To wit, how many "types of
listening" are there, and/or "how can you characterize the myriad 'types
of listening'" you believe to be extant? You are unable to answer
either, correct? That was a rhetorical question BTW, as I notice your
"types of listening" has already morphed into the "chameleon nature of
consciousness" - How many of these contrived, undefined, euphemisms do
you plan to use? (non rhetorical)

Your arguments are based, IMO, on pure semantic smoke and mirrors. To
attempt to answer the questions I posed would merely confirm such. Thus
your hesitancy is understandable. It puts paid to their viability however.

Keith Hughes

wrote:
wrote:

That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts.

*Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context.

Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small,
rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears.


This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and
I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have
investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that
matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's
certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely.

But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to
control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to
previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music,
afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is
that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2)
my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change
(2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least
a start at controlling (2).

Note that any kind of listening test which involves a large number of
trials in a short time is *presuming* that those trials involve
*independent*, unconnected experiences. The most elementary observation
suggests otherwise. I'm not saying I've *proven* otherwise; just that
it needs to be investigated.

Mike

wrote in message
...
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message
...
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message
...
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message

I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking
subjectivists
than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance,
for
all
the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time
working
on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered
versions
of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing
Stew.

I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of
my
favorite music before worrying about which were the best
mastered.



My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then
his
vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of
course
this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time
looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings.

Too bad, you're missing out on a lot of good music in my
subjective opinion.


Really? you mean you have found better perfomances of the Beatles
records by other artists than the Beatles? I guess i am missing out.
Do
tell.

The Rolling Stones' version of "I Wanna Be Your Man", for one.


Better than the Beatles version? That is a matter of opinion. Got m
both.



Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings
could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves.


Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have
over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not
sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on
Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles
but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your
concern.

You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend
his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should
look for the best *performances* first. Oh well.

- Gary Rosen

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Oct 2005 21:29:38 GMT, Signal wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :

That's ridiculous. They have years of listening enjoyment by a many
many audiophiles. That is the bottom line for subjectivists. Lets face
this, the objectivists have no alternative to offer subjectivists that
will satisfy subjectivists. telling people their perceptions are wrong
is ultimately the most silly thing of all and hat does seem to be the
answer objectivists wish to ofer subjectivists.

It is true that attempting to educate the religious is doomed to
failure.

However, that *you* are unwilling to face reality, does not make us
give up hope that others will just 'trust their ears', as the
subjectivists always *claim* that they want people to do. What you
guys often forget is that all the 'hard line objectivists' on this
newgroup used to be exactly like you - except that we were willing to
accept that we had been wrong for all these years.

You and a few others have experienced what could be described as a
religious conversion.

Certainly, 'the scales fell from my eyes'..... :-)

At one time you believed that differences you
perceived (and still do - this is a matter of record) were reality
based, but participation in double bind tests (esp. ABX) has
influenced your thinking to the degree that you now have absolute
FAITH in this method of comparing components.

I do, but this faith is based on evidence, and hence is not religious
faith.


We understand that your beliefs about the audibility of small changes
is based on the evidence of quick-switching ABX tests. However, what we
are suggesting is that you have uncritical faith in such tests as
revealing the entire picture. In other words, your faith is not in the
conclusion, but in the means of gathering evidence.

The fact that such tests may result in a consistent picture of the
ear/brain, means nothing about the wider context of all listening.

Mike

wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

snip

For this whole analogy to have any relevance, you would have to be
asserting that the *act* of listening changes, not perception, but the
physical construction or configuration of the sound waves hitting your
eardrum. Is this your assertion?


As an objectivist is wont to do, you are narrowing the focus too much
and not seeing the big picture. You look merely at the "observer
observing the sound." In the bigger picture, an audio test is an
"observer A observing the observer B observing the sound."

I merely comment on the fallaciousness of your analogy, to which another
fractured rung has just been added. An audio test is *not* "observer A
observing the observer B observing the sound". "A" is the proctor
(having no evaluative role *in the observation*), "B" is the observer.
That you conflate the two is illustrative, but hardly surprising.

The context set up by A (the perceptual scientist) in order
to observe the behavior of B (the subject) most definitely influences
the behavior of B.

An unsupported assertion. Removing "A" (and other confounding
variables) from the equation is what test design is all about. What did
you think the "double" in double blind testing was *for*?


This analogy to quantum mechanics is not an assertion that there is
some equivalent "audio uncertainty principle" that somehow prevents us
from learning what we need to learn (i.e., Pinkerton's interpretation
as "mysterious force"). It is an analogy I make in order to show that
the
influence of the context of listening has been wholesale ignored by
the objectivists---and the so-called "lack of troublesome
observations" means nothing.

The analogy *makes no point* if it is neither relevant, nor
illustrative. The "uncertainty" principle is the entire basis for your
analogy, yet you now claim that there is no audio corollary. Thus the
analogy is irrelevant in the audio context.


That would not be a comprehensive observation of
creature X. And yet, the objectivist claims about the ear are based on
*one* kind of listening!

Mike

Ok Mike, tell us this: 1) *Exactly* how many "kinds of listening" are
there? You don't know? OK then, 2) pray tell us *exactly* how can the
number of different "kinds of listening" be determined and objectively
defined?

If you cannot answer either question, in real objectively verifiable
terms, then your whole argument merely reduces to "there are infinite
modes of perception, and without testing them all, we cannot know if any
specific theory is correct". Or, more succinctly, unless we know
everything, we know nothing. The corollary (the basis of your argument
here) is, of course, "as long as we don't know *everything*, *anything*
is possible, and all possibilities are equally likely". This is the
very antithesis of science.

One correction before we move on, the statement "...we know nothing."
*should* have read "...we know nothing for certain.". My mistake.

To show how absurd this argument is, let's rephrase it with cooking.

Ah, and here you're going to make my point exactly. As...

I point out that you have only ever cooked dishes that include beef. I
claim there are other kinds of dishes.

Another inapt analogy, but let's explore it anyway...

You say, "Okay then, *exactly* how many kinds of dishes are there? You
can't answer this question? You're obviously a pseudoscientist who
claims we know nothing."

To which you reply *what*? Here, let me provide your answer, in terms
of *YOUR* analogy: "There are an infinite number of dishes, each either
greatly or subtly different from all others". Right? OK, so now let's
recast this answer within the context of the original discussion. I ask
the following:

"*Exactly* how many 'kinds of listening' are there?"

To which you reply (as is obvious from your "dish" analogy):

"There are an infinite number of 'kinds of listening', each either
greatly or subtly different from all others."

It follows logically that we must either test the infinite number of
'types of listening', or our theory must remain unproven. If the number
is infinite, or nearly so, then there *is* no subset of the population
of 'listening types' that is statistically significant or predictive.

Now, if there is a finite number of 'types of listening', but we cannot
identify that number, and if we lack any methodology with which to
determine the number of 'types of listening', then we are faced with
the same situation as if the number were infinite, i.e. no statistically
significant sample size can be identified, and thus the theory must,
perforce, remain unproven.

The result, in both cases, reduces to the same thing, "Nothing can ever
be proven", as you are forever free to hypothesize the existence of yet
another, and another, and another 'type of listening'. You do not even
feel the need to *define* the terminology, further assuring that an
infinite number of 'what ifs' can be conjured at need, simply by
tweaking your amorphous hypothetical construct (e.g. "type of
listening"). An approach clearly at odds with common sense, and also
clearly antithetical to the scientific method of inquiry.

BTW, feel free to embrace the "pseudoscientist" appellation if you feel
it's appropriate to you; you will note, however, that *I* did not use
that term. When I say "antithetical to scientific inquiry", I do not
mean pseudoscientific.

Keith Hughes

Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

snip

Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After
we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and
determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff.
The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That
*one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis
previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit).

I understand your argument here, and I understand that if you truly
believe this to be an accurate analogy for what has taken place, then I
can see why you have faith in the answers of psychoacoustic science.

Yes, I believe it is an accurate analogy. It, like all other aspects of
scientific inquiry, relies on the preponderance of evidence,
understanding that *everything* will never be fully recognized or
delineated. If, OTOH, you believe your analogy to be accurate, you need
to do *Much* more to address the obvious implication that *no* prior
analyses have been performed. A rather Herculean task it would appear.

However, your argument can be answered on multiple levels:

Really? Let's see...

(1) A single experiment is not sufficient to verify a theory developed
completely on analytical grounds.

Complete nonsense. "One" test typically incorporates multiple
challenges, or iterations, and is wholly sufficient to verify, *sans
contravening data*, that the theory is acceptable. Note the caveat please.

Tell me which one observation verified general relativity.



(2) Science doesn't work this way, anyhow. Theory and observation are
intermingled.

No, they are not "intermingled". Theories are generated to explain
observations, period. The converse is not true, although you seem not
to understand that simple principle.

Observations are carried out using equipment designed by principles
proposed by earlier theories. Just for one example.


When the "bioengineering analysis" itself it based on
other observations

I.e., observations of flight-capable creatures, the population of
interest, clearly, so...?

---and ALL those observations were made in the
context of creature X falling off a cliff

You are clearly befuddled as to the relationship of cause and effect.
*None* of the observations are made "in the context of creature X
falling off a cliff".

Certainly not in your analogy, but in the actual observation of human
hearing, only one context has been employed.

Mike

On 18 Oct 2005 02:07:49 GMT, "Gary Rosen"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings
could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves.

Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have
over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not
sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on
Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles
but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your
concern.

You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend
his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should
look for the best *performances* first. Oh well.

You are of course correct, the performance is more important than the
mastering. Porky George of course just likes to argue for its own
sake, and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't
know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy. In many
cases, I have at one time owned *all* the available versions, so I
certainly do know which I prefer.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

snip

For this whole analogy to have any relevance, you would have to be
asserting that the *act* of listening changes, not perception, but the
physical construction or configuration of the sound waves hitting your
eardrum. Is this your assertion?


As an objectivist is wont to do, you are narrowing the focus too much
and not seeing the big picture. You look merely at the "observer
observing the sound." In the bigger picture, an audio test is an
"observer A observing the observer B observing the sound."

I merely comment on the fallaciousness of your analogy, to which another
fractured rung has just been added. An audio test is *not* "observer A
observing the observer B observing the sound". "A" is the proctor
(having no evaluative role *in the observation*), "B" is the observer.

Your persistance at narrowing the context is remarkable.

The word "observation" doesn't imply direct subjective involvement.
Webster's definition includes:

"an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving
measurement with instruments"

Noting the subject's response, whether done blind, double-blind, or
upside-down, is an observation.

Just as the slit experiment involves *measuring* a photon's position.


An unsupported assertion. Removing "A" (and other confounding
variables) from the equation is what test design is all about. What did
you think the "double" in double blind testing was *for*?


This analogy to quantum mechanics is not an assertion that there is
some equivalent "audio uncertainty principle" that somehow prevents us
from learning what we need to learn (i.e., Pinkerton's interpretation
as "mysterious force"). It is an analogy I make in order to show that
the
influence of the context of listening has been wholesale ignored by
the objectivists---and the so-called "lack of troublesome
observations" means nothing.

The analogy *makes no point* if it is neither relevant, nor
illustrative. The "uncertainty" principle is the entire basis for your
analogy, yet you now claim that there is no audio corollary.

That's amusing. *You* are the one who dragged in the uncertainty
principle. I originally made reference to duality as the analogy.

(Somehow I imagine you are going to say they are the same thing, or
that one is necessary to explain the other.. that may be for *light*
but not necessarily for *consciousness*)


To show how absurd this argument is, let's rephrase it with cooking.

Ah, and here you're going to make my point exactly. As...

I point out that you have only ever cooked dishes that include beef. I
claim there are other kinds of dishes.

Another inapt analogy, but let's explore it anyway...

You say, "Okay then, *exactly* how many kinds of dishes are there? You
can't answer this question? You're obviously a pseudoscientist who
claims we know nothing."

To which you reply *what*? Here, let me provide your answer, in terms
of *YOUR* analogy: "There are an infinite number of dishes, each either
greatly or subtly different from all others".

Remarkable--I've never before seen someone not only use a strawman
argument, but literally *define* the meaning of a strawman argument in
doing so ("let me provide your answer").

The result, in both cases, reduces to the same thing, "Nothing can ever
be proven", as you are forever free to hypothesize the existence of yet
another, and another, and another 'type of listening'.

My cooking analogy was very simple and you apparently don't get the
basic point. Anyone reading my reply ("there are other kinds of
dishes") would say, "Yes, this opens up new avenues of investigation."
Anyone reading your bizarre reply would think, "What?? How does a
simple call for more investigation turn into an argument that 'nothing
can be proven'?" I don't think I'm the one engaging in mental
gymnastics here...

If you want to know the whole story, read all my past posts. I've
stated in plenty of times, and I'm not going to repeat it all merely
because you haven't read it. We could *start* with the idea that
attention can be either free-floating or directed. That would provide
two "kinds" of listening, and no one has ever been able to point me to
a test which could separate or control for which type the subject
employed.

Mike

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts.

*Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context.

Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small,
rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears.


This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and
I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have
investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that
matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's
certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely.

What evidence am I ignoring?

But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to
control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to
previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music,
afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is
that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2)
my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change
(2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least
a start at controlling (2).

And have you found components that sound the same to you when you
haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each
other when you have recently listened to live music? You want to make
the claim that there is some "context" or "condition" in which the
standard ear/brain model fails to predict audible discrimination
accurately. This would at least offer some glimmer of evidence to
support your position. But of course you haven't got any evidence, do
you?

Note that any kind of listening test which involves a large number of
trials in a short time is *presuming* that those trials involve
*independent*, unconnected experiences. The most elementary observation
suggests otherwise. I'm not saying I've *proven* otherwise; just that
it needs to be investigated.

I would suggest that your observations are far too elementary to be
relevant to the question at hand. You are playing a very typical
pseudoscientific game with your "contexts" and "conditions." You have
so far suggested absolutely nothing that's worthy of investigation,
because you cannot offer a single observation regarding audibility that
cannot be explained by current science. Even the Intelligent Design
theorists can do better than that.

bob

wrote in message
...
We understand that your beliefs about the audibility of small changes
is based on the evidence of quick-switching ABX tests. However, what we
are suggesting is that you have uncritical faith in such tests as
revealing the entire picture. In other words, your faith is not in the
conclusion, but in the means of gathering evidence.


But you don't seem to have anything of substance to offer to prove that
something is being missed, other than your faith.

The fact that such tests may result in a consistent picture of the
ear/brain, means nothing about the wider context of all listening.

And you still don't offer anything other than faith that there is something
being missed in equipment comparisons that account for the claims made by
the subjectivist side.

One thing that is certain about the objectivist side is we rely on relaible,
repeatable evidence, and when new evidence is shown to contradict something
that we have held as true, we are perfectly willing to revise our viewpoint
and incorporate the new evidence into our beliefs.

It doesn't seem to be the same for the other side, as they've been indenial
for a very long time IMO.

Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message
...
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message
...
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message
...
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message

I note that a few seem to be more interested in attacking
subjectivists
than actually spending time geting better sound. For intance,
for
all
the time you have spent on RAHE you could have spent that time
working
on home brewed room treatment or on finding the best mastered
versions
of you favorite music. What a waste. Oh well. happy arguing
Stew.

I would spend my time finding the best *performed* versions of
my
favorite music before worrying about which were the best
mastered.



My post already assumes that Stewart has done as much. If no then
his
vigil against subjectivism has been even more wasteful. And of
course
this is only an issue with classical. i wouldn't spend much time
looking for the best performance of any Beatles recordings.

Too bad, you're missing out on a lot of good music in my
subjective opinion.


Really? you mean you have found better perfomances of the Beatles
records by other artists than the Beatles? I guess i am missing out.
Do
tell.

The Rolling Stones' version of "I Wanna Be Your Man", for one.


Better than the Beatles version? That is a matter of opinion. Got m
both.



Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings
could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves.


Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have
over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not
sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on
Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles
but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your
concern.

You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend
his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should
look for the best *performances* first. Oh well.


Perhaps you are confused since Stewart has claimed to have already done
so and my post was made with that understanding. You might as well
suggest that one first get a stereo system.




Scott

wrote:
wrote in message
...
We understand that your beliefs about the audibility of small changes
is based on the evidence of quick-switching ABX tests. However, what we
are suggesting is that you have uncritical faith in such tests as
revealing the entire picture. In other words, your faith is not in the
conclusion, but in the means of gathering evidence.


But you don't seem to have anything of substance to offer to prove that
something is being missed, other than your faith.

The fact that such tests may result in a consistent picture of the
ear/brain, means nothing about the wider context of all listening.

And you still don't offer anything other than faith that there is something
being missed in equipment comparisons that account for the claims made by
the subjectivist side.



Objectivist: "Elephnats don't fly and no one has ever been able to
observe flying elephants!"

A certain subjectivist:" But we have been looking for flying elephants
in a single context: using only eyes. There are a very large number of
other contexts that we have not considered in our search for flying
elephants, and we have to investigate the eye/brain under all possible
conditions. A whole-person response to flying elephants is just too
complex. If you just investigate the eye/brain under one set of
conditions, of course you are not going to find flying elephants.

"For example, what you ate before you started to look for flying
elephants is very important. I noticed that if I were to ingest certain
mushrooms, I would subsequently detect colors that I could never see
under other conditions. So, in the search of flying elephants, you have
to consider what the observers eat before they say they can't find them.

"Another example: we could start with the idea that attention can be
either free-floating" or "directed". No one has ever pointed me to a
search for flying elephants where those two cases were separated or
under control.

"I proposed the following challenge. Can any objectivist describe flying
elephants the way I described them, without substituting their own
words, and without distorting my meaning? No objectivist has ever able
to do that. So, of course, the objectivists are wrong!"

Objectivist: "In the face of such superior logic, we concede. There are
flying elephants."

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts.

*Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context.

Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small,
rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears.


This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and
I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have
investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that
matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's
certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely.

What evidence am I ignoring?

But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to
control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to
previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music,
afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is
that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2)
my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change
(2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least
a start at controlling (2).

And have you found components that sound the same to you when you
haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each
other when you have recently listened to live music?

This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very
simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience,
suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed
from (1) and (2).

The double-blind quick-switching listening tests which purport to show
us what is audible and what is not, have, as their premise, that any
audio snippet A produces the same conscious response *regardless of
context*. Tests designed under this premise are the one and only kind
of test used to measure discriminatory ability.

It follows that they can only measure the component of consciousness
which arises from (1). (2) is not controlled. It is the *premise* but
by no means the proven result of these experiments that (2) is
irrelevant.

Mike

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts.

*Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context.

Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small,
rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears.


This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and
I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have
investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that
matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's
certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely.

What evidence am I ignoring?

But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to
control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to
previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music,
afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is
that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2)
my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change
(2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least
a start at controlling (2).

And have you found components that sound the same to you when you
haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each
other when you have recently listened to live music?

I thought of a simpler way to explain this. It's not that context
affects how A and B sound different, it's that context affects how A
sounds and how B sounds. If you wish to determine if A and B stimulate
different conscious experiences, you must take this into consideration.

Mike

On 19 Oct 2005 02:27:27 GMT, wrote:

Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

snip

Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After
we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and
determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff.
The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That
*one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis
previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit).

I understand your argument here, and I understand that if you truly
believe this to be an accurate analogy for what has taken place, then I
can see why you have faith in the answers of psychoacoustic science.

Yes, I believe it is an accurate analogy. It, like all other aspects of
scientific inquiry, relies on the preponderance of evidence,
understanding that *everything* will never be fully recognized or
delineated. If, OTOH, you believe your analogy to be accurate, you need
to do *Much* more to address the obvious implication that *no* prior
analyses have been performed. A rather Herculean task it would appear.

However, your argument can be answered on multiple levels:

Really? Let's see...

(1) A single experiment is not sufficient to verify a theory developed
completely on analytical grounds.

Complete nonsense. "One" test typically incorporates multiple
challenges, or iterations, and is wholly sufficient to verify, *sans
contravening data*, that the theory is acceptable. Note the caveat please.

Tell me which one observation verified general relativity.

That would be light bending around the Sun.

Tell me which one observation verifies *your* theory - whatever it is.

(2) Science doesn't work this way, anyhow. Theory and observation are
intermingled.

No, they are not "intermingled". Theories are generated to explain
observations, period. The converse is not true, although you seem not
to understand that simple principle.

Observations are carried out using equipment designed by principles
proposed by earlier theories. Just for one example.

What, you mean like eyeballs? Or indeed ears....

When the "bioengineering analysis" itself it based on
other observations

I.e., observations of flight-capable creatures, the population of
interest, clearly, so...?

---and ALL those observations were made in the
context of creature X falling off a cliff

You are clearly befuddled as to the relationship of cause and effect.
*None* of the observations are made "in the context of creature X
falling off a cliff".

Certainly not in your analogy, but in the actual observation of human
hearing, only one context has been employed.

Untrue - peopole have made all kinds of claims for all kinds of
listening experiences. However, those who have made real observations
have invariably disovered that level-matched quick-switched blind
comparisons are the most sensitive. If you wish to argue against this,
you must cease your handwaving and provide some *evidence*.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

snip

Tell me which one observation verified general relativity.

Uhmmm...how about time dilation (atomic clocks at orbital velocities -
heard of it?). Remember the caveat of "sans contravening data".

snip

---and ALL those observations were made in the
context of creature X falling off a cliff

You are clearly befuddled as to the relationship of cause and effect.
*None* of the observations are made "in the context of creature X
falling off a cliff".

Certainly not in your analogy, but in the actual observation of human
hearing, only one context has been employed.

Well, first, it was *your* analogy, merely misconstructed. Again, if
you cannot define what a "hearing context" is, you clearly have no basis
for determining how many have been tested.

Keith Hughes

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Oct 2005 02:07:49 GMT, "Gary Rosen"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings
could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves.

Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have
over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not
sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on
Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles
but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your
concern.

You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend
his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should
look for the best *performances* first. Oh well.

You are of course correct,


he is? You need to spend time looking for better performances first? I
thought you said you alreay have all the music you wanted? Did you not
say that?



the performance is more important than the
mastering.


That's a silly statement. They are mutually exclusive and not an
either/or proposition.


Porky George of course just likes to argue for its own
sake,


Really? Never bought expensive equipment just to argue that it is a bad
value.



and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't
know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy.


Wrong as usual. I based it on your claim that it is an easy task. It
simply isn't an easy task to seek out and evaluate the best masterings
of popular titles. That leads me to believe you really haven't done the
job. If you don't want to that is fine. I suspect that it shouldn't bea
problem for you given the fact that you have your speakers set up
backwards and against the walls anyway. But for those of us with
highend equipment that is actually set up the way it was designed to be
set up there is great poential for vast improvements in the quality of
the listening exprience through seeking out different, better
masterings of one's favorite music. It isn't easy because it involves
getting the different versions to start with, listening to them
individually to get the best levels and other relevaaant settings and
then doing careful side by side comparisons, blind and sighted. it's a
lot to do. How anyone can consider this an easy task with so many
recordings simply suggests they really don't know what they are talking
about.

In many
cases, I have at one time owned *all* the available versions,


How do you know? Examples please?


so I
certainly do know which I prefer.


How do you know it wasn't your biases telling you which one you prefer?



Scott

wrote:

Keith Hughes wrote:

I merely comment on the fallaciousness of your analogy, to which another
fractured rung has just been added. An audio test is *not* "observer A
observing the observer B observing the sound". "A" is the proctor
(having no evaluative role *in the observation*), "B" is the observer.

Your persistance at narrowing the context is remarkable.

Dwarfed by your ability to misconstrue and misdirect however.

The word "observation" doesn't imply direct subjective involvement.
Webster's definition includes:

"an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving
measurement with instruments"

And praytell, what part of "recognizing and noting a fact or occurence"
is free of subjective involvement? Even were that remotely relevant to
your "observer A" role in the first place.


Noting the subject's response, whether done blind, double-blind, or
upside-down, is an observation.

The proctor of an audio test is not subjectively evaluating the
subjective response of the audio observer. That's the point you don't
seem to understand. There's only one observer, the proctor merely
facilitates the test. The observer observes the test probe, not the
proctor.

Just as the slit experiment involves *measuring* a photon's position.

No, the slit experiment shows the particle nature (single slit,
non-interference mode) and wave nature (mulitple slits - wave
inteference mode) of photons (and all species of fermions for that
matter as well). Perhaps you're thinking of 'seeing' where it impacts
the target, which is not really the same thing at all.

snip


The analogy *makes no point* if it is neither relevant, nor
illustrative. The "uncertainty" principle is the entire basis for your
analogy, yet you now claim that there is no audio corollary.

That's amusing. *You* are the one who dragged in the uncertainty
principle. I originally made reference to duality as the analogy.

Amusing only to the uninformed.

(Somehow I imagine you are going to say they are the same thing, or
that one is necessary to explain the other..

You are correct. I and all physicists in the world would tell you that.
The duality principle is inextricably linked to the uncertainty
principle. They are manifestations of the same intrinsic property. You
can provide a reference to refute this?

that may be for *light*

No, it *is* that way for light, unless you don't believe in quantum physics.

but not necessarily for *consciousness*)

In which case your whole analogy fails to be *analogous* to the subject.
That was my point after all. To be in any way analogous, you would
have to be suggesting that there is some 'uncertainty' in consciousness
equivalent to 'quantum' uncertainty (the predicate for the 'duality' at
the heart of your argument). You believe this to be true?

snip

To which you reply *what*? Here, let me provide your answer, in terms
of *YOUR* analogy: "There are an infinite number of dishes, each either
greatly or subtly different from all others".

Remarkable--I've never before seen someone not only use a strawman
argument, but literally *define* the meaning of a strawman argument in
doing so ("let me provide your answer")

And you of course ignore the qualifier "in terms of *YOUR* analogy".
When you posit an analogy, the reader is free to examine it logically,
and using the predicates provided by the positer (i.e. the very
structure of the analogy), to extrapolate internally consistent
continuations.

Further, please explain how "There are an infinite number of dishes,
each either greatly or subtly different from all others" is
*qualitatively* different from "there are other kinds of dishes",
especially given that your number of dishes cannot be defined (it is
instructive here to refer to the "dish's" analog in the real discussion
- i.e. your "types of listening" which you adamantly refuse to define).


The result, in both cases, reduces to the same thing, "Nothing can ever
be proven", as you are forever free to hypothesize the existence of yet
another, and another, and another 'type of listening'.


My cooking analogy was very simple and you apparently don't get the
basic point. Anyone reading my reply ("there are other kinds of
dishes") would say, "Yes, this opens up new avenues of investigation."

No, not when you compare the analogy, contextually, with the base
argument. In the base argument, you're stating that a theory based on
ABX testing *is deficient* because it does not incorporate "other types
of listening". The only logical continuation of that argument is that
the other "types of listening" must be investigated to determine
validity. But, given the rigor of your definition, you are free to posit
an infinite number of "types of listening" are you not? Just as, in
your simple analogy, you are free to define/discover/develop/posit an
endless number of dishes that would have to be "tested" in order to
validate a theory about *cooking* (note "cooking" is the relevant
analog, not "beef dish", which may be where you are confused).
Listening=cooking, ABX=Beef dish, "types of listening"="other dishes".

Anyone reading your bizarre reply would think, "What?? How does a
simple call for more investigation turn into an argument that 'nothing
can be proven'?" I don't think I'm the one engaging in mental
gymnastics here...

Clearly you cannot grasp the very simple concept that one cannot test an
infinite number of parameters. And clearly, when *your* criteria for
acceptance of an audio theory are that *all* possible hypothetical
parameters and environmental conditions be fully tested, you are
*defining* the proof to be impossible. Please name *ONE* theory that
has been tested under all possible conditions, varying all possible
parameters. Hint: such theory does not, and cannot exist.

Using nebulous, undefined terminology such as "types of listening"
simply allows for an infinite number of hypotheticals as to why any
extant test results are, and must remain, insufficient.

If you want to know the whole story, read all my past posts.

I've read most of what's been written here in the last 8 or 9 years.
Did you post something profound, and relevant to the current thread,
prior to that time?

I've
stated in plenty of times, and I'm not going to repeat it all merely
because you haven't read it.

A foolish assumption, IMO, in the context of a news group...

We could *start* with the idea that
attention can be either free-floating or directed. That would provide
two "kinds" of listening,

And tell me Mike, you've really found universal acceptance of this
assertion here haven't you? You assert this as fact even though this
having been discussed here, at some length, you've garnered little
agreement. You have failed, IIRC, to provide any evidence that these
are, in fact, different types of perception that would/could provide
different perceptual results.

But just suppose we were to stipulate that *these two* are in fact
different "kinds" of listening. Wherein have you placed *ANY*
constraint, whatsoever, on how many other types there can be? Or of
what magnitude a change must be to justify being a 'different type', or
how many parameters there are that can vary by some magnitude to
engender a 'different type'? The answer, clearly, is that you have not.

That is why this whole approach is patently anti-science. When you
remove, or disallow all constraints, and decouple theory from predicate
observations, Science cannot function.

and no one has ever been able to point me to
a test which could separate or control for which type the subject
employed.

You use this statement as vindication that insufficient testing has been
done, when in fact, there is no data to suggest your purported
perceptual dichotomy exists. Researchers seldom control (intentionally)
for imaginary variables.

Keith Hughes

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:27:27 GMT, wrote:

Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

snip

Let's tug this analogy somewhat closer to reality, shall we? After
we've analyzed creature X both biomechanically, and aerodynamically, and
determined that it is not flight-capable, we shove it off the cliff.
The splat provides corroboration of the bioengineering analysis. That
*one* experiment *is* sufficient to *verify* the bioengineering analysis
previously performed (you know, the part you conveniently like to omit).

I understand your argument here, and I understand that if you truly
believe this to be an accurate analogy for what has taken place, then I
can see why you have faith in the answers of psychoacoustic science.

Yes, I believe it is an accurate analogy. It, like all other aspects of
scientific inquiry, relies on the preponderance of evidence,
understanding that *everything* will never be fully recognized or
delineated. If, OTOH, you believe your analogy to be accurate, you need
to do *Much* more to address the obvious implication that *no* prior
analyses have been performed. A rather Herculean task it would appear.

However, your argument can be answered on multiple levels:

Really? Let's see...

(1) A single experiment is not sufficient to verify a theory developed
completely on analytical grounds.

Complete nonsense. "One" test typically incorporates multiple
challenges, or iterations, and is wholly sufficient to verify, *sans
contravening data*, that the theory is acceptable. Note the caveat please.

Tell me which one observation verified general relativity.

That would be light bending around the Sun.


Well, you should get on the phone to LIGO right away and tell them to
cancel the gravity-wave experiment--- no need to waste our time on that
now, because we've already verified the whole of general relativity! We
already *know* what the result would be, so there's no need to do the
experiment.

Kind of like objectivists already the *know* the result of a
living-with-the-component blind test, even though they can't provide a
single reference to one that has ever taken place.

Mike

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

That's because light was investigated in a variety of contexts.

*Hearing* has only been investigated in *one* context.

Yes, that would be the context where you sit in a room and let small,
rapid changes in air pressure impact your ears.


This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and
I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have
investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that
matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's
certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely.

What evidence am I ignoring?

But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to
control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to
previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music,
afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is
that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2)
my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change
(2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least
a start at controlling (2).

And have you found components that sound the same to you when you
haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each
other when you have recently listened to live music?

This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very
simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience,
suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed
from (1) and (2).

And so is the experience of auditory bias effects. So, how do you
reliably distinguish an objective difference from one that is *entirely*
subjective? Simply responding to a sound does not mean that what you
believe about the sound is *accurate*. Responding to two sounds
with the feeling that one is 'better' is not *by itself* sufficient
proof that the two sounds were objectively different. This is simple,
demonstrable scientific fact. Your 'response' can be COMPLETELY INACCURATE
as a gauge of objective difference.

This is also the irreducible flaw in your apparently endless chain of
shaky inference.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Oct 2005 02:07:49 GMT, "Gary Rosen"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings
could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves.

Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have
over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not
sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on
Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles
but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your
concern.

You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend
his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should
look for the best *performances* first. Oh well.

You are of course correct,

he is? You need to spend time looking for better performances first? I
thought you said you alreay have all the music you wanted? Did you not
say that?

I did, because I have already searched out preferred performances of
classic works, e.g. Andy Previews's Planets.

the performance is more important than the
mastering.

That's a silly statement. They are mutually exclusive and not an
either/or proposition.

Nope, a poorly mastered recording of a great performance will *always*
outrank an impeccably mastered mediocrity.

Porky George of course just likes to argue for its own
sake,

Really? Never bought expensive equipment just to argue that it is a bad
value.

No, never. I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value,
and some of my cheap stuff - such as my Pioneer DV-575 - to be superb
value.

and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't
know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy.

Wrong as usual. I based it on your claim that it is an easy task. It
simply isn't an easy task to seek out and evaluate the best masterings
of popular titles.

Sure it is, that's what the InterNet is *for*.

That leads me to believe you really haven't done the
job. If you don't want to that is fine. I suspect that it shouldn't bea
problem for you given the fact that you have your speakers set up
backwards and against the walls anyway.

Typical of you to be unable to understand basic acoustics, even when
it's been explained to you.

But for those of us with
highend equipment that is actually set up the way it was designed to be
set up there is great poential for vast improvements in the quality of
the listening exprience through seeking out different, better
masterings of one's favorite music. It isn't easy because it involves
getting the different versions to start with, listening to them
individually to get the best levels and other relevaaant settings and
then doing careful side by side comparisons, blind and sighted. it's a
lot to do. How anyone can consider this an easy task with so many
recordings simply suggests they really don't know what they are talking
about.

No, I've simply been an audiophile for a *looooong* time! :-)

In many
cases, I have at one time owned *all* the available versions,

How do you know? Examples please?

DSOTM. The many masterings are well enough known.

so I
certainly do know which I prefer.

How do you know it wasn't your biases telling you which one you prefer?

When it comes to *preference*, bias is not a problem.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
This says it all. You are simply *ignoring* all the context. Harry and
I and others have pointed out repeatedly the context we wish to have
investigated, but your response is generally "there's no evidence that
matters" or "there's no evidence that exists" etc. Yup, there's
certainly no evidence when you ignore it entirely.

What evidence am I ignoring?

Lack of reply noted. Thank you for admitting that I am not ignoring any
evidence.

But to be specific, just one piece of context that would be good to
control in listening tests: what the subject has listened to
previously. Just for example, I find that when I listen to live music,
afterward I find recorded music to be more enjoyable. My hypothesis is
that my experience of music is constructed from the (1) sound and (2)
my response to the sound. What I've listened to previously can change
(2). I suggest that our knowledge is incomplete until we make at least
a start at controlling (2).

And have you found components that sound the same to you when you
haven't recently listened to live music, but sound different from each
other when you have recently listened to live music?

This is completely missing the point.

It is precisely the point. You argue that having heard live music
affects your perception of recorded music. But you now admit that it
does not affect your ability to differentiate between components. So
you still have yet to provide us with a single "context" in which our
standard ear/brain model of perception is wrong.

The point is that this very
simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience,
suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed
from (1) and (2).

The double-blind quick-switching listening tests which purport to show
us what is audible and what is not, have, as their premise, that any
audio snippet A produces the same conscious response *regardless of
context*.

No, it does not. It simply assumes (for sound, empirical reasons) that
"context"--whatever you may mean or think you mean by that--is
irrelevant to the question of whether two things are audibly
distinguishable. It does not assume that your conscious response would
be the same in all contexts. It only assumes that your conscious
response will be the same for two similar components, assuming you hold
context constant.

Tests designed under this premise are the one and only kind
of test used to measure discriminatory ability.

It follows that they can only measure the component of consciousness
which arises from (1). (2) is not controlled. It is the *premise* but
by no means the proven result of these experiments that (2) is
irrelevant.

2, per you above, is "[your] response to the sound." Of course we don't
control that. That's what we're testing! Sheesh.

bob

wrote:
wrote:

The double-blind quick-switching listening tests which purport to show
us what is audible and what is not, have, as their premise, that any
audio snippet A produces the same conscious response *regardless of
context*.

No, it does not. It simply assumes (for sound, empirical reasons) that
"context"--whatever you may mean or think you mean by that--is
irrelevant to the question of whether two things are audibly
distinguishable. It does not assume that your conscious response would
be the same in all contexts. It only assumes that your conscious
response will be the same for two similar components, assuming you hold
context constant.

"Holding context constant" is exactly what you don't do.

My example of listening to live music, then noting a changed perception
of recorded music, demonstrates that listening to A can affect how one
hears B.

In, say, an ABX test, first you hear A, then B, then A again (let's
say)... the first time you've heard A, there was nothing before.. the
second time, you heard A and B before.

Composers use the very principle that a musical segment isn't "on its
own" but exists in a context, in order to manipulate our experience of
music.

The validity of the test absolutely requires that A create the same
experience each time you hear it.. if that's not true, then the test
isn't valid.


Tests designed under this premise are the one and only kind
of test used to measure discriminatory ability.

It follows that they can only measure the component of consciousness
which arises from (1). (2) is not controlled. It is the *premise* but
by no means the proven result of these experiments that (2) is
irrelevant.

2, per you above, is "[your] response to the sound." Of course we don't
control that. That's what we're testing! Sheesh.

(2) is made up of all responses to the sound including an aesthetic
response. An ABX test either eliminates the aesthetic response, and/or
fails to control other aspects of (2) such that they will be different
at different times during the test.

Mike

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
...

To bring it back to audio, what we know about the ear, the brain, and
sound reproduction technology seems to cover pretty much everything
that's likely to apply when you're listening to music. Short of
completely overturning current theory (which seems very unlikely), any
alternate conditions leading to new theory simply aren't going to change
the existing knowledge about ordinary listening situations very much.


Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory.
And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account?

Why don't you tell me what role you think it should have? Since you're
so fired up that there isn't one.

Why don't you tell me why emotional reaction isn't a separable issue
from audio reproduction? The gear cares not for your emotions, because
it cannot 'care' at all. It's always doing the same thing. So are your
outer ear, inner ear, cochlea, and the brain structures immediately
connected to the cochlea; all of these are very mechanical in operation,
and they're pretty much what determines whether there's a real sensory
difference available to the murkier cognitive and emotional parts of the
brain. So far as I'm aware, there's no evidence to support the notion
that standard blind tests are inadequate to determine the sensitivity of
these very mechanical and unemotional parts of the brain.

--
Tim

In article ,
wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one
could explain with conventional physics. I get that.

However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one
investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a
particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave
will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a
particle.

That makes absolutely no sense. Say light behaves like a wave in
Situation A, which is where you've done all your experimentation and
observation so far. Now you wish to investigate Situation B, where it
will actually behave like a particle. But you don't know that yet!
Even if you go into B with the assumption that light will still behave
like a wave, you'll still come out with observations which contradict
the assumption.

Reply to Tim:

Point 1, it makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics does.

What makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics? The object of
this claim is not clear.

(Your introduction of quantum mechanics is not a good sign. In my
experience, people who try to use QM to prove a point about the everyday
world seldom have anything insightful to say about either QM or the
human experience.)

And
Point 2, the objectivists have never done Experiment B.

The objectivists would like to know what Situation (*not* Experiment,
the two are different) B is, or (at least) what evidence suggests that
there might _be_ a Situation B.

When scientists investigated light as a particle, they found evidence
that it was a wave. Your claim that audio research is flawed because
they haven't explicitly looked for your handwavey Situation B is wrong.
If there was a Situation B one would expect hints of it to show up
during the ordinary course of things. If nothing else, eventually some
researcher would perform tests under Situation B (or a distant relative
thereof) by accident, and come up with odd results...

Furthermore
they seem to think it is the responsibility of those with no research
money or resources to do so.

This objectivist thinks it is the responsibility of those making absurd
claims to do at least the minimum possible to support them. It does not
require research money or substantial resources to perform blind tests
of your audio beliefs.

You have only investigated the ear/brain under one set of conditions.
Of course you don't have anything you can't explain!

One thing which you don't appear to understand is that (just like
relativity vs. Newtonian mechanics) even if some different domain
exists, it isn't likely to be all that different from the known domain,
unless conditions are really extraordinary.

Point 1, this is merely your opinion and you have no way to prove that
the universe *always* behaves like this.

Get back to me when physics changes in a substantial way from one day to
the next, or is observed to be different in one place than another, OK?
It's one thing to say "but this, that, and the other thing COULD be
true, HONEST!". It's another thing entirely to establish such
woulda-couldas as ideas which reasonable people ought to pay any
attention to.

Point 2, Einstein and Newton
predict very different things about the limits and possibilities in the
universe.

Your point does not bear on mine. Mine is simply that relativity very
closely matches the results from Newtonian physics under everyday
conditions. If you assume low relative velocities and then apply
standard mathematical approximation tricks to Einstein's equations
(removing terms which should approach zero, etc.), you get Newton's
equations out. (Or so I have been informed...)

You wish to appeal to some undefined special listening condition which
conventional science has not investigated. Fine, but realize that what
science has investigated is pretty much what you're doing when you
listen to your stereo, so what good are these supposed other listening
states going to do for your cause?

Point 3, I'm not making any extraordinary claims about the
ear; just that it might behave differently than we expect in a
situation that has never before been investigated.

So get off the pot: what is this situation you insist needs
investigation, and how is it relevant to audio reproduction technology?
We already know plenty about what goes on when you sit in front of your
audio system in a room and listen to music.

For example, you can do a
pretty decent job of simulating the orbital dynamics of the Solar System
using Newton's laws. GR does a better job, but as far as I know many
space missions are planned using plain old Newton.

Wrong. GR is integral to converting between time frames.

But it's not necessary to use GR to put a satellite into orbit... or
man on the moon. (To the best of my knowledge, Apollo missions were
planned using Newtonian physics to simulate orbits.)

Objects in the Solar
System simply don't move fast enough relative to one another to deviate
a great deal from Newton.

The sun is a big enough mass though, and actually when you measure time
on the order of nanoseconds things do move fast enough to notice.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

First, measuring time with nanosecond precision does not magically cause
objects to move faster than when you measure time in seconds, or
minutes, or hours. Either objects are moving fast enough relative to
one another to introduce significant deviations from Newtonian
predictions, or they're not.

Second, Newtonian simulations of the Solar System diverge from observed
reality when you allow them to run for LONG periods of (simulated) time.
A few nanoseconds isn't enough time for any significant error to
accumulate. Days/weeks/months aren't enough, in most cases...

--
Tim

"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
...

To bring it back to audio, what we know about the ear, the brain, and
sound reproduction technology seems to cover pretty much everything
that's likely to apply when you're listening to music. Short of
completely overturning current theory (which seems very unlikely), any
alternate conditions leading to new theory simply aren't going to
change
the existing knowledge about ordinary listening situations very much.


Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory.
And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account?

Why don't you tell me what role you think it should have? Since you're
so fired up that there isn't one.

Why don't you tell me why emotional reaction isn't a separable issue
from audio reproduction? The gear cares not for your emotions, because
it cannot 'care' at all. It's always doing the same thing. So are your
outer ear, inner ear, cochlea, and the brain structures immediately
connected to the cochlea; all of these are very mechanical in operation,
and they're pretty much what determines whether there's a real sensory
difference available to the murkier cognitive and emotional parts of the
brain. So far as I'm aware, there's no evidence to support the notion
that standard blind tests are inadequate to determine the sensitivity of
these very mechanical and unemotional parts of the brain.


We are talking about listening to/reacting to music as reproduced...not
sound per se. If you don't think that involves a response that includes
emotional response (sometimes from a very primitive part of the brain) then
you are wrong, and that is your misfortune.. Science knows better.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that some components reproduce music in such a
way that whatever emotional response the music generates live is present,
and others components seem to "mask" this effect. Current industry
standards involve a test that ignores this aspect at best, and actively
works against it at worst. At the very least, one can say it has not been
validated to make sure it can replicate ordinary listening when it comes to
allowing this aspect to develop.

Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
...

To bring it back to audio, what we know about the ear, the brain, and
sound reproduction technology seems to cover pretty much everything
that's likely to apply when you're listening to music. Short of
completely overturning current theory (which seems very unlikely), any
alternate conditions leading to new theory simply aren't going to change
the existing knowledge about ordinary listening situations very much.


Tell us, what role does emotional reaction have in current audio theory.
And what part of conventional audio testing takes it into account?

Why don't you tell me what role you think it should have? Since you're
so fired up that there isn't one.

Emotion has no role in current, or past, 'audio theory'. It has a
role in theories of perception. There's no controversy whatsoever
over the fact that one's emotions can affect one's perceptions of the
*exact same* stimulus at different times. Which of course means
that relying on a report from 'emotions' to determine whether a *stimulus*
has changed, is pointless.

If Harry et al are worried that their emotions aren't sufficiently
engaged during an ABX test, that isn't an intrinsic problem with ABX tests.
An ABX test *will* tell them whether the differences they hear during
the A/B part of that particular ABX test, are likely to be real.
If they are concerned that the test only took a snapshot of their
perceptual prowess during one emotional state, they are free
to repeat it. They are also FREE to listen as long as they like,
to each A and each B, sighted, until they feel, emotionally,
that there is a rock-solid difference betweem the two. Then
all they have to do is identify A and B under blind conditions.

If an ABX test was so antithetical to 'emotions' that reveal
*real* difference, then how is is that anyone ever claims
to hear differences during the A/B part of the test?





--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Einstein's theory was motivated in part by observations that no one
could explain with conventional physics. I get that.

However, the behavior of the universe in part relates to how one
investigates. Light is a wave when investigated as a wave, and a
particle when investigated as a particle. Investigating light as a wave
will not uncover any troublesome observations suggesting it is a
particle.

That makes absolutely no sense. Say light behaves like a wave in
Situation A, which is where you've done all your experimentation and
observation so far. Now you wish to investigate Situation B, where it
will actually behave like a particle. But you don't know that yet!
Even if you go into B with the assumption that light will still behave
like a wave, you'll still come out with observations which contradict
the assumption.

Reply to Tim:

Point 1, it makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics does.

What makes exactly as much sense as quantum mechanics? The object of
this claim is not clear.

(Your introduction of quantum mechanics is not a good sign. In my
experience, people who try to use QM to prove a point about the everyday
world seldom have anything insightful to say about either QM or the
human experience.)

Some scientist once said: when someone cites quantum mechanics
to support an argument that isn't about subatomic physics, I reach
for my gun.

Or if no scientist ever said it, I just have.

(Deepak Chopra, I'm aiming at *you*.)



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


Objects in the Solar
System simply don't move fast enough relative to one another to deviate
a great deal from Newton.

The sun is a big enough mass though, and actually when you measure time
on the order of nanoseconds things do move fast enough to notice.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?


Before you condescend to someone, you might want to find out if they
know much more about the topic than you do.

Suppose you send a signal to a spacecraft in deep space at time t1. It
receives the signal at time t2_a and retransmits after a given delay,
at time t2_b. And you receive the signal at Earth at time t3. A clock
on the spacecraft ticks at a different rate than a clock on Earth due
to its different position in the Sun's gravity field as well as its
motion. t2_b - t2_a is not the same measured at Earth as measured at
the spacecraft. A necessary fact for accurate navigation.

The relevance to audio? You are attempting to shrug off the problems
with audio testing by claiming that, even if we have two models A and B
that both have some predictive power, it is some universal law that A
and B predict practically the same thing in "ordinary circumstances."
It has now been pointed out to you this is not true for
Newton/Einstein, and even if it were, that would say nothing about this
universal law you wish to invoke. Furthermore...


You wish to appeal to some undefined special listening condition which
conventional science has not investigated. Fine, but realize that what
science has investigated is pretty much what you're doing when you
listen to your stereo, so what good are these supposed other listening
states going to do for your cause?

"What you're doing when you listen to your stereo" is precisely what
science has not investigated. When you are listening to your stereo you
are not quick-switching, comparing the sound to anything else, or
conceptualizing the sound.

Mike

Keith Hughes wrote:
wrote:

Keith Hughes wrote:

I merely comment on the fallaciousness of your analogy, to which another
fractured rung has just been added. An audio test is *not* "observer A
observing the observer B observing the sound". "A" is the proctor
(having no evaluative role *in the observation*), "B" is the observer.

Your persistance at narrowing the context is remarkable.

Dwarfed by your ability to misconstrue and misdirect however.

The word "observation" doesn't imply direct subjective involvement.
Webster's definition includes:

"an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving
measurement with instruments"

And praytell, what part of "recognizing and noting a fact or occurence"
is free of subjective involvement?

Recording whether the subject selected X=A or X=B.


Noting the subject's response, whether done blind, double-blind, or
upside-down, is an observation.

The proctor of an audio test is not subjectively evaluating the
subjective response of the audio observer. That's the point you don't
seem to understand.

What you don't seem to understand is that I never made that point. The
"proctor" sets up the protocol, chooses the music or sounds, sets up
the choice of responses, and gives instructions to the subject. Like
the other objectivists here, you want to pretend that none of that
influences the conscious experience of the subject.




that may be for *light*

No, it *is* that way for light, unless you don't believe in quantum physics.

but not necessarily for *consciousness*)

In which case your whole analogy fails to be *analogous* to the subject.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that for any two theories
A and B: A and B are either perfectly analogous, or else the whole of A
fails to be analogous to the whole of B.


That was my point after all. To be in any way analogous, you would
have to be suggesting that there is some 'uncertainty' in consciousness
equivalent to 'quantum' uncertainty (the predicate for the 'duality' at
the heart of your argument). You believe this to be true?

Certainly true to the extent that the context which is set up for
examining consciousness influences consciousness. Particularly when the
protocol is forced-choice.


snip

To which you reply *what*? Here, let me provide your answer, in terms
of *YOUR* analogy: "There are an infinite number of dishes, each either
greatly or subtly different from all others".

Remarkable--I've never before seen someone not only use a strawman
argument, but literally *define* the meaning of a strawman argument in
doing so ("let me provide your answer")

And you of course ignore the qualifier "in terms of *YOUR* analogy".
When you posit an analogy, the reader is free to examine it logically,
and using the predicates provided by the positer (i.e. the very
structure of the analogy), to extrapolate internally consistent
continuations.

The reader is also free to desconstruct the individual sentences of my
post, taking them out of context, but that's rather pointless.



Further, please explain how "There are an infinite number of dishes,
each either greatly or subtly different from all others" is
*qualitatively* different from "there are other kinds of dishes",
especially given that your number of dishes cannot be defined (it is
instructive here to refer to the "dish's" analog in the real discussion
- i.e. your "types of listening" which you adamantly refuse to define).


The result, in both cases, reduces to the same thing, "Nothing can ever
be proven", as you are forever free to hypothesize the existence of yet
another, and another, and another 'type of listening'.


My cooking analogy was very simple and you apparently don't get the
basic point. Anyone reading my reply ("there are other kinds of
dishes") would say, "Yes, this opens up new avenues of investigation."

No, not when you compare the analogy, contextually, with the base
argument. In the base argument, you're stating that a theory based on
ABX testing *is deficient* because it does not incorporate "other types
of listening". The only logical continuation of that argument is that
the other "types of listening" must be investigated to determine
validity. But, given the rigor of your definition, you are free to posit
an infinite number of "types of listening" are you not?

You certainly wish to believe that's what I would do since it would
allow you to dismiss my argument.

My experience as a musician and composer gives me some idea how context
influences conscious experience. That is, after all, the JOB of
musicians. If you enjoy music, you are enjoying the fruits of a careful
examination of how sound turns into experience.

It seems you have never investigated from a first-person perspective
how your senses turn into a conscious experience, so what I'm saying is
a big mystery to you. Of course you wish to turn it into a suggestion
that there are an "infinite number of types of listening".

Nevertheless, if you enjoy music, and I presume you do since you are on
this newsgroup, you are enjoying the fruits of the musician's
understanding of such matters as conscious focus, and "directed" versus
"broad" focus.



Just as, in
your simple analogy, you are free to define/discover/develop/posit an
endless number of dishes that would have to be "tested" in order to
validate a theory about *cooking* (note "cooking" is the relevant
analog, not "beef dish", which may be where you are confused).
Listening=cooking, ABX=Beef dish, "types of listening"="other dishes".

Anyone reading your bizarre reply would think, "What?? How does a
simple call for more investigation turn into an argument that 'nothing
can be proven'?" I don't think I'm the one engaging in mental
gymnastics here...

Clearly you cannot grasp the very simple concept that one cannot test an
infinite number of parameters.

Clearly you haven't figured out yet that's your strawman.

And clearly, when *your* criteria for
acceptance of an audio theory are that *all* possible hypothetical
parameters and environmental conditions be fully tested, you are
*defining* the proof to be impossible. Please name *ONE* theory that
has been tested under all possible conditions, varying all possible
parameters. Hint: such theory does not, and cannot exist.

Using the phrase "all posible conditions/parameters" several times in
one paragraph shows just how strongly you've latched onto this
strawman. Probably because you don't know how to answer the argument
I'm actually making.


Using nebulous, undefined terminology such as "types of listening"
simply allows for an infinite number of hypotheticals as to why any
extant test results are, and must remain, insufficient.

If you want to know the whole story, read all my past posts.

I've read most of what's been written here in the last 8 or 9 years.
Did you post something profound, and relevant to the current thread,
prior to that time?

I've
stated in plenty of times, and I'm not going to repeat it all merely
because you haven't read it.

A foolish assumption, IMO, in the context of a news group...

We could *start* with the idea that
attention can be either free-floating or directed. That would provide
two "kinds" of listening,

And tell me Mike, you've really found universal acceptance of this
assertion here haven't you? You assert this as fact even though this
having been discussed here, at some length, you've garnered little
agreement. You have failed, IIRC, to provide any evidence that these
are, in fact, different types of perception that would/could provide
different perceptual results.

But just suppose we were to stipulate that *these two* are in fact
different "kinds" of listening. Wherein have you placed *ANY*
constraint, whatsoever, on how many other types there can be?

The experimentation could be started without resolving the larger
question. This is a basic ploy of the objectivists---to try to prevent
the investigation necessary to precisely define and empiricize this
model, on the grounds that it hasn't yet been precisely defined and
empiricized!


Or of
what magnitude a change must be to justify being a 'different type', or
how many parameters there are that can vary by some magnitude to
engender a 'different type'? The answer, clearly, is that you have not.

That is why this whole approach is patently anti-science. When you
remove, or disallow all constraints, and decouple theory from predicate
observations, Science cannot function.

and no one has ever been able to point me to
a test which could separate or control for which type the subject
employed.

You use this statement as vindication that insufficient testing has been
done, when in fact, there is no data to suggest your purported
perceptual dichotomy exists.

Are you saying you've never noticed this: that what you notice in the
world is influenced by what you are paying attention to?

There was a writeup of an experiment in Skeptic magazine not so long
ago which demonstrated this--the "gorilla in the basketball court
experiment."

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/06..._gorilla_.html

Researchers seldom control (intentionally) for imaginary variables.

Objectivists do, however, deny they exist for the sake of convenience.

Mike

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very
simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience,
suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed
from (1) and (2).

And so is the experience of auditory bias effects. So, how do you
reliably distinguish an objective difference from one that is *entirely*
subjective?

There are any number of methods other than quick-switching ABX. A blind
living-with-the-component test, or a blind monadic test with listening
intervals chosen carefully. The objectivists have never replied to me
with any reference to such tests.

Simply responding to a sound does not mean that what you
believe about the sound is *accurate*. Responding to two sounds
with the feeling that one is 'better' is not *by itself* sufficient
proof that the two sounds were objectively different. This is simple,
demonstrable scientific fact. Your 'response' can be COMPLETELY INACCURATE
as a gauge of objective difference.

This is also the irreducible flaw in your apparently endless chain of
shaky inference.


No matter how many times I say that I don't object to the "blindness"
of blind testing, the objectivists keep bringing up this strawman.

Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Oct 2005 02:07:49 GMT, "Gary Rosen"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Furthermore, best performed versions of Beatles' recordings
could include multiple performances by the Beatles themselves.

Could? You don't know? Maybe you are the one missing out not me. I have
over 2500 LPs and 500 CDs. My musical plate is pretty full. I'm not
sure what you are worried about in my case. you might want to focus on
Stewart. Seems he thinks he has the best masters of his favorite titles
but has no idea whether or not that is true. But thanks for your
concern.

You seem confused. You were the one who insisted that Stewart spend
his time looking for the best *masters*, then I suggested one should
look for the best *performances* first. Oh well.

You are of course correct,

he is? You need to spend time looking for better performances first? I
thought you said you alreay have all the music you wanted? Did you not
say that?

I did, because I have already searched out preferred performances of
classic works, e.g. Andy Previews's Planets.

Then contrary to what you said, he wasn't correct and my informed
premise was quite a safe one.



the performance is more important than the
mastering.

That's a silly statement. They are mutually exclusive and not an
either/or proposition.

Nope, a poorly mastered recording of a great performance will *always*
outrank an impeccably mastered mediocrity.


Again you are wrong. Mastering and performace are mutually exclusive.
You set up an either/or choice that simply does not exist in the real
world. One is not forced to concede an inferior mastering in order to
choose a prefered performance unless there is only one mastering
available of a given title and it is bad. This is simply not the
reality in the case of thousands upon thousands of commercial
recordings. If you choose to ignore this reality amoung such a vast
array of commercial recordings that is your choice but it is not
reality.




Porky George of course just likes to argue for its own
sake,

Really? Never bought expensive equipment just to argue that it is a bad
value.

No, never. I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value,


weird. More money and inferior or equal perfomance makes for good
value? Very weird. Just my opinion.



and some of my cheap stuff - such as my Pioneer DV-575 - to be superb
value.


I suppose if you slide the scales in such a way that expensive
equipment that offers inferior sound is cosidered good value this does
make sense in a twisted way.




and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't
know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy.

Wrong as usual. I based it on your claim that it is an easy task. It
simply isn't an easy task to seek out and evaluate the best masterings
of popular titles.

Sure it is, that's what the InterNet is *for*.


Oh I see, you take other peoples' word for it. I don't.





That leads me to believe you really haven't done the
job. If you don't want to that is fine. I suspect that it shouldn't bea
problem for you given the fact that you have your speakers set up
backwards and against the walls anyway.

Typical of you to be unable to understand basic acoustics, even when
it's been explained to you.


Maybe you should have explained it to the designer of your speakers
while he was alive since he explicitly claimed that such a set up was
extremely wrong even with the speakers on the right side. fact is it is
a comprimised set up at best. It is not the way the speakers were
designed to be set up.




But for those of us with
highend equipment that is actually set up the way it was designed to be
set up there is great poential for vast improvements in the quality of
the listening exprience through seeking out different, better
masterings of one's favorite music. It isn't easy because it involves
getting the different versions to start with, listening to them
individually to get the best levels and other relevaaant settings and
then doing careful side by side comparisons, blind and sighted. it's a
lot to do. How anyone can consider this an easy task with so many
recordings simply suggests they really don't know what they are talking
about.

No, I've simply been an audiophile for a *looooong* time! :-)



So what blind comparisons have you actually made of various masterings
of commercial titles? I still think you really haven't done it. But
then you did say you took the short cut an took other poeples word for
it on the subject. i consider that to be a starting point at best not
an ending point.




In many
cases, I have at one time owned *all* the available versions,

How do you know? Examples please?

DSOTM. The many masterings are well enough known.


You own them all? I highly doubt that.



so I
certainly do know which I prefer.

How do you know it wasn't your biases telling you which one you prefer?

When it comes to *preference*, bias is not a problem.


Wrong. I suggest you read up on psychoacoustics some time. it is a
major factor in preferences. I thought every objectiist knew this and
were up on the literature. Oh well.

Scott

wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very
simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience,
suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed
from (1) and (2).

And so is the experience of auditory bias effects. So, how do you
reliably distinguish an objective difference from one that is *entirely*
subjective?

There are any number of methods other than quick-switching ABX. A blind
living-with-the-component test, or a blind monadic test with listening
intervals chosen carefully. The objectivists have never replied to me
with any reference to such tests.

Simply responding to a sound does not mean that what you
believe about the sound is *accurate*. Responding to two sounds
with the feeling that one is 'better' is not *by itself* sufficient
proof that the two sounds were objectively different. This is simple,
demonstrable scientific fact. Your 'response' can be COMPLETELY
INACCURATE
as a gauge of objective difference.

This is also the irreducible flaw in your apparently endless chain of
shaky inference.


No matter how many times I say that I don't object to the "blindness"
of blind testing, the objectivists keep bringing up this strawman.


I have come to the conclusion that they do this because it avoids the issues
raised and having to directly answer them....which they never do.
Essentially to do so means acknowledging some uncertainty in their "faith".
Accordingly, it exposes their beliefs *as* faith rather than "science".

wrote:
Keith Hughes wrote:

And praytell, what part of "recognizing and noting a fact or occurence"
is free of subjective involvement?

Recording whether the subject selected X=A or X=B.

Well, I'm sure glad that recognizing that the subject selected A or B
(i.e. discrimination) involves no subjective interpretation of sensory
input.


Noting the subject's response, whether done blind, double-blind, or
upside-down, is an observation.

The proctor of an audio test is not subjectively evaluating the
subjective response of the audio observer. That's the point you don't
seem to understand.

What you don't seem to understand is that I never made that point.

You said, and I quote: "You look merely at the 'observer observing the
sound.'' In the bigger picture, an audio test is an "observer A
observing the observer B observing the sound.'" This clearly indicates
that you believe the proctor's *observation* of the observer plays an
active role in the Observers response.

The
"proctor" sets up the protocol, chooses the music or sounds, sets up
the choice of responses, and gives instructions to the subject. Like
the other objectivists here, you want to pretend that none of that
influences the conscious experience of the subject.

Now who's building strawmen? I've said, repeatedly, that the test
methodology plays a crucial role in the efficacy of the test.
Methodology that fails to result in repeatable results, for multiple
iterations of identical probe stimuli, are defacto flawed. Guess you
missed that.

snip

In which case your whole analogy fails to be *analogous* to the subject.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that for any two theories
A and B: A and B are either perfectly analogous, or else the whole of A
fails to be analogous to the whole of B.

While you operate under the assumption that an analogy, no matter how
flawed and non representative, can be used to 'prove' your point. Of
course analogies do not have to be perfect, they merely need to align,
logically, with the situation they purport to model. The various
segments, or subparts, of the analogy must have the same *logical
relationship* with each other as do the analogous segments of the actual
situation, or they have no predictive value. Your analogies
consistently fail against this criterion.


That was my point after all. To be in any way analogous, you would
have to be suggesting that there is some 'uncertainty' in consciousness
equivalent to 'quantum' uncertainty (the predicate for the 'duality' at
the heart of your argument). You believe this to be true?

Certainly true to the extent that the context which is set up for
examining consciousness influences consciousness. Particularly when the
protocol is forced-choice.

Truly a non sequitur. How does the test structure relate to any
intrinsic duality of consciousness? Had you been referring to external
forces (i.e. test conditions/parameters) instead of internal processes,
a quantum analogy would have been totally superfluous.

snip

And you of course ignore the qualifier "in terms of *YOUR* analogy".
When you posit an analogy, the reader is free to examine it logically,
and using the predicates provided by the positer (i.e. the very
structure of the analogy), to extrapolate internally consistent
continuations.


The reader is also free to desconstruct the individual sentences of my
post, taking them out of context, but that's rather pointless.

You truly do not understand the whole concept of an analogy do you? The
whole basis is to construct a series, or pattern, of similar (congruent)
events/features/parameters, etc., for the purposes of extrapolating the
congruity of events/features/parameters, etc., not currently in
evidence. That is why a logically inconsistent analogy is useless, and
no deconstruction is necessary.

snip

No, not when you compare the analogy, contextually, with the base
argument. In the base argument, you're stating that a theory based on
ABX testing *is deficient* because it does not incorporate "other types
of listening". The only logical continuation of that argument is that
the other "types of listening" must be investigated to determine
validity. But, given the rigor of your definition, you are free to posit
an infinite number of "types of listening" are you not?


You certainly wish to believe that's what I would do since it would
allow you to dismiss my argument.

No, that's what you *are* doing. Where is your definition of "listening
types"?

snip


It seems you have never investigated from a first-person perspective
how your senses turn into a conscious experience, so what I'm saying is
a big mystery to you. Of course you wish to turn it into a suggestion
that there are an "infinite number of types of listening".

It appears that what you are saying is a big mystery to you. *I* in no
way suggested that there are "infinite number of types of listening", I
merely point out the *fact* that as long as you refuse to define or
constrain the term, *YOU* are free to postulate as many as you choose.
How is that *not* so?

Nevertheless, if you enjoy music, and I presume you do since you are on
this newsgroup, you are enjoying the fruits of the musician's
understanding of such matters as conscious focus, and "directed" versus
"broad" focus.

Yes, I do enjoy music. And yes, I am enjoying the fruits of musicians
talents - that their talent is related to "understanding of such matters
as conscious focus, and "directed" versus "broad" focus." is merely your
opinion.

snip

Clearly you cannot grasp the very simple concept that one cannot test an
infinite number of parameters.


Clearly you haven't figured out yet that's your strawman.

If it's a strawman, then define your terms. Can't? How surprising.

snip

But just suppose we were to stipulate that *these two* are in fact
different "kinds" of listening. Wherein have you placed *ANY*
constraint, whatsoever, on how many other types there can be?


The experimentation could be started without resolving the larger
question. This is a basic ploy of the objectivists---to try to prevent
the investigation necessary to precisely define and empiricize this
model, on the grounds that it hasn't yet been precisely defined and
empiricized!

Oh come now, this is utterly ludicrous! Experimentation starts when
there's a *reason* to start - i.e. an observation that is repeatable,
and contravenes existing theory. You don't have any such data do you?
Also, it is *your* contention that there are these *types of listening*
that have a huge affect on audio perception, and you now pretend that
you can construct a valid audio test without even knowing what the term
means. And, as has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, you are free to
experiment any time you like, and post any repeatable observations you
obtain. So have at it...

snip

Researchers seldom control (intentionally) for imaginary variables.


Objectivists do, however, deny they exist for the sake of convenience.

Ah...at last your point becomes clear. You are upset because
objectivists ignore non-mathematical *imaginary* variables. How utterly
foolish of us!

Keith Hughes

On 23 Oct 2005 06:03:34 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

This is completely missing the point. The point is that this very
simple experience, which anyone can check against their own experience,
suggests, as I said above, that the experience of music is constructed
from (1) and (2).

And so is the experience of auditory bias effects. So, how do you
reliably distinguish an objective difference from one that is *entirely*
subjective?

There are any number of methods other than quick-switching ABX. A blind
living-with-the-component test, or a blind monadic test with listening
intervals chosen carefully. The objectivists have never replied to me
with any reference to such tests.

Simply responding to a sound does not mean that what you
believe about the sound is *accurate*. Responding to two sounds
with the feeling that one is 'better' is not *by itself* sufficient
proof that the two sounds were objectively different. This is simple,
demonstrable scientific fact. Your 'response' can be COMPLETELY
INACCURATE
as a gauge of objective difference.

This is also the irreducible flaw in your apparently endless chain of
shaky inference.


No matter how many times I say that I don't object to the "blindness"
of blind testing, the objectivists keep bringing up this strawman.


I have come to the conclusion that they do this because it avoids the issues
raised and having to directly answer them....which they never do.
Essentially to do so means acknowledging some uncertainty in their "faith".
Accordingly, it exposes their beliefs *as* faith rather than "science".

Actually no, we're just patiently waitng for you, Michael et al to
come up with some actual *evidence* from these claimed superior test
methods. As time goes on, it becomes clearer that they are simply
excuses for you disliking ABX because it doesn't back up your sighted
prejudices.

The reality is that you *dare* not conduct any other kind of blind
test, monadic or otherwise, because you're perfectly well aware that
it would produce the same result. That's what's really behind
Michael's ever-spiralling sophistry - fear of the very simple truth.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:01 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote:

I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value,

weird. More money and inferior or equal perfomance makes for good
value? Very weird. Just my opinion.

Sjow me where I can purchase for less than a grand, an an=mplifier
which will deliver 2x400 watts continuously into a one-ohm load. Show
me speakers which will outperform my Apogee Duetta Signatures at
pretty much any price, let alone the 4 grand that I paid for them.

and some of my cheap stuff - such as my Pioneer DV-575 - to be superb
value.

I suppose if you slide the scales in such a way that expensive
equipment that offers inferior sound is cosidered good value this does
make sense in a twisted way.

It makes perfect sense in every way, but as noted, you just like to
argue for its own sake.

and he he has absolutely no basis for his claim that I don't
know whether I have the best masters of the music I enjoy.

Wrong as usual. I based it on your claim that it is an easy task. It
simply isn't an easy task to seek out and evaluate the best masterings
of popular titles.

Sure it is, that's what the InterNet is *for*.

Oh I see, you take other peoples' word for it. I don't.

Another deliberate misunderstanding? The Net is perfect for
*searches*, and for tracking down obscure albums.

That leads me to believe you really haven't done the
job. If you don't want to that is fine. I suspect that it shouldn't bea
problem for you given the fact that you have your speakers set up
backwards and against the walls anyway.

Typical of you to be unable to understand basic acoustics, even when
it's been explained to you.

Maybe you should have explained it to the designer of your speakers
while he was alive since he explicitly claimed that such a set up was
extremely wrong even with the speakers on the right side.

He did no such thing.

In fact is it is
a comprimised set up at best. It is not the way the speakers were
designed to be set up.

So what? It's a perfectly good use of their characteristics, and more
to the point, it works.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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



snip



The experimentation could be started without resolving the larger
question. This is a basic ploy of the objectivists---to try to prevent
the investigation necessary to precisely define and empiricize this
model, on the grounds that it hasn't yet been precisely defined and
empiricized!

Oh come now, this is utterly ludicrous! Experimentation starts when
there's a *reason* to start - i.e. an observation that is repeatable, and
contravenes existing theory. You don't have any such data do you? Also,
it is *your* contention that there are these *types of listening* that
have a huge affect on audio perception, and you now pretend that you can
construct a valid audio test without even knowing what the term means.
And, as has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, you are free to
experiment any time you like, and post any repeatable observations you
obtain. So have at it...


The evidence in this case, Keith, is in the social psychology. Many
audiophiles simply, intuitively feel that short-snippet, quick-switch
testing destroys the context in which they normally listen to music and
makes judgments, especially the comparative test known as ABX. If you want
hard evidence, just count up the number of posters who have voiced this
opinion on UseNet over the last 25 years. You may think it can be explained
away as sighted bias, and perhaps it can be. But not by insisting on using
the same test as is raising the objections in the first place, because that
test simply doesn't deal with the variable raised....which is an
approximation of a normal listening environment/state (relaxed, evaluative
rather than focused, comparative).