| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another DBT post
Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite specifics. Andy |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Andrew Korsh wrote:
Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite specifics. Andy No, for a very simple reason. No accredited research institution would bother, since the experiment would do nothing but re-confirm settled science. We already know what cables can do to signals, and we already know at what levels those effects will be audible. Scientists have better things to do than to prove what they already know. To anticipate the complaint that this demonstrates a lack of open-mindedness, scientists are always willing to entertain plausible new ideas, and to test them. Similarly, if presented with a phenomenon that cannot be explained by our existing knowledge, they are willing to investigate its cause. The problem is that those who wave their arms about DBTs here can offer nothing new, and nothing that cannot already be explained. All of the objections they raise have been considered and rejected. If they bothered to inform themselves of the scientific work that has already been done on human hearing perception, they would know this. If they really want to advance science, instead of closing their minds to it (which is what they are doing now), those skeptics should try doing their own experiments, instead of demanding that others waste our time satisfying their ill-informed "curiosity." bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Andrew Korsh" wrote in message
news:01CNb.74975$I06.329093@attbi_s01... Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite specifics. Not that we know of. For any such tests to take place there has to be someone that has enough need for the results to justify financing the test. One might expect that a cable company would fall into that category. So far, tests sponsored by cable companies have been notable for their absence. i.e. no cable company wants to know the results of rigorous scientific testing of their product. They most certainly don't want the public to have access to the results! Several years ago, I ran a reasonably scientific test of biwiring on a Vandersteen speaker. Vandersteen himself recommended biwiring, so it seemed like a good choice of speaker to run the test. None of the 4 people taking the test could identify biwiring v. monowiring using 33' of #12 or #18 wire. They could, however, using #24 telephone wire; they preferred monowiring. It is to my everlasting shame that I failed to properly document this test, so that the results would be of value to others. I have no excuse. Cheers, Norm Strong |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:QNXNb.70074$sv6.147069@attbi_s52... "Andrew Korsh" wrote in message news:01CNb.74975$I06.329093@attbi_s01... Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite specifics. Not that we know of. For any such tests to take place there has to be someone that has enough need for the results to justify financing the test. One might expect that a cable company would fall into that category. So far, tests sponsored by cable companies have been notable for their absence. i.e. no cable company wants to know the results of rigorous scientific testing of their product. They most certainly don't want the public to have access to the results! Several years ago, I ran a reasonably scientific test of biwiring on a Vandersteen speaker. Vandersteen himself recommended biwiring, so it seemed like a good choice of speaker to run the test. None of the 4 people taking the test could identify biwiring v. monowiring using 33' of #12 or #18 wire. They could, however, using #24 telephone wire; they preferred monowiring. It is to my everlasting shame that I failed to properly document this test, so that the results would be of value to others. I have no excuse. Yes you do. You were doing it for yourself and your friends and were not preparing for publication. No apologies needed. Simply regret that you don't have it. I've got lots of "experiments" that I wish I had document. It is after all, a *hobby*. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
(Andrew Korsh) wrote:
Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite specifics. (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: No, because serious research institutions do not investigate 'the bleeding obvious'. There have also been no serious researches into whether the moon is made of green cheese, or whether Elvis is alive. What's "obvious" to you is a subject of much contention here, or haven't you noticed. The lack of rigorous DBT cable or even audio component tests shows how small the audiophile universe is compared to other scientific research areas. No one really cares but a few regular 'debaters' here on RAHE. The subjectivists hear all of the differences for themselves and the objectivists deny there are differences to hear. Until someone actually sponsors some rigorous academic research on the topic, the truth is most likely lies somewhere in between. Regards, Mike |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
(Andrew Korsh) wrote: Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite specifics. (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: No, because serious research institutions do not investigate 'the bleeding obvious'. There have also been no serious researches into whether the moon is made of green cheese, or whether Elvis is alive. What's "obvious" to you is a subject of much contention here, or haven't you noticed. The lack of rigorous DBT cable or even audio component tests shows how small the audiophile universe is compared to other scientific research areas. No one really cares but a few regular 'debaters' here on RAHE. The subjectivists hear all of the differences for themselves and the objectivists deny there are differences to hear. Until someone actually sponsors some rigorous academic research on the topic, the truth is most likely lies somewhere in between. Regards, Mike Similary, the scientific community doesn't care about the anti- or pseudoscientific beliefs of audiophiles. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Similary, the scientific community doesn't care about the anti- or
pseudoscientific beliefs of audiophiles. Many memebers of the scientific community care a great deal about pseudoscientific beliefs. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/register.php Many scientists devote a great deal in combating the pseudoscience of creationism. But you already know this. It looks like audio has not been very interesting to most people who are interested in debunking pseudoscience and claims of the paranormal. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
S888Wheel wrote:
Similary, the scientific community doesn't care about the anti- or pseudoscientific beliefs of audiophiles. Many memebers of the scientific community care a great deal about pseudoscientific beliefs. ....which is why I was careful to write OF AUDIOPHILES, Scott. Sheesh. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/register.php Many scientists devote a great deal in combating the pseudoscience of creationism. But you already know this. It looks like audio has not been very interesting to most people who are interested in debunking pseudoscience and claims of the paranormal. IOW, like I said. There are bigger and more important anti-science foes for scientists and debunkers to fight, than the ill-informed belief systems of a small cadre of audio hobbyists. The job of 'debunking' should be performed by the audio press. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
(Nousaine) wrote:
snip So the proponents say. What is so interesting in this faux debate is that the 'truth' of this matter doesn't require a trip to the Moon. All it needs is one proponent somewhere, anywhere to demonstrate that "amps ain't amps" or "wires ain't wires" with controls to eliminate known listening bias mechanisms. Unfortunately, your mechanism for controlling bias does not appear to be sensitive enough to detect subtle audible details. The threshold of audibility with pink noise appears to be 1.75dB loudness differences and much greater than that for music (Greenhill). Just once, under conditions that can be duplicated, would do it. But in 30+ years of argument no one has. In my 25+ years of truth-soul searching I haven't found amp/wire/parts sound and believe me I've tried. Obviously, you believe in your method and refuse to consider the possibility (much less the fact) that it doesn't work for what you are using it for. During that time I've been called any number of unpleasant things, been accused of any number of un-ethical opinions yet I've never witnessed a single human demonstrate an ability to hear nominally competent amplifiers or wires when even moderate bias controls were implemented. I believe you are honorable and well meaning, but blinded by your belieif system as are many of your colleagues. Then there are others who I would characterize as not so well meaning... Never ONCE. Yet I've been called a radical on one end. So the "truth" must be somewhere in the middle because radicals like myself HAVE to be on the opposite end of a spectrum where noTWO amplifiers have ever sounded the same ....ever. Like I said - you believe what you believe and use methods that continue to confirm your beliefs without questioning them. So take your pick either M Kuller who has never met two amplifiers that sound the same or Me who has never seen anybody show that any two reasonably competent amplifiers will sound different unless driven into clipping. Mr Kuller seems to be driving to compromise here. A few days ago he never heard any two ampliifers that didn't sound different but NOW the truth lies somewhere in between. So which is it? Do ALL amplifiers sound different or don't they? There may be two amplifiers somewhere that sound the same; I'll give you that. By saying the the truth is somewhere in between, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, sometting your side seems reluctant to do - realizing that further proof is necessary to settle this matter. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion ad nauseum. Regards, Mike |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Unfortunately, your mechanism for controlling bias does not appear to be
sensitive enough to detect subtle audible details. (Mkuller) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote: You mean that placing a cloth over amplifer or speaker terminals reduces listener sensitivity? In the same system using the same programs where the original "differences" were observed? Yes. This is the single biggest problem with open-ended blind listening tests - verifying , not just *assuming* it is as sensitive in detecting audible differences as sighted listening. It seems like this should be easy to do. Say, start with volume differences that can be measured and compare the two methods. Then try try some measureable frequency response differences and verify the two types of listening have the same sensitivity. Because blind listening requires a 'remember/compare/match/decide/chose' process where sighted listening only requires 'remember/compare', I suspect blind listening is less sensitive. I can't prove it - can you prove me wrong? Until there is verification, all we have is speculation. Regards, Mike |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote: You mean that placing a cloth over amplifer or speaker terminals reduces listener sensitivity? In the same system using the same programs where the original "differences" were observed? Yes. By what *possible* mechanism could this be true? If *all* other factors remain constant (all processes, procedures, environmental parameters, etc.), as Tom is alluding to, lack of a priori "identification information" is the only difference introduced. That cannot affect your listening sensitivity, as it is completely disconnected from that sense. snip Because blind listening requires a 'remember/compare/match/decide/chose' process where sighted listening only requires 'remember/compare', I suspect blind listening is less sensitive. Again, as Tom seemed to be clearly suggesting above, the *only* difference is knowledge of what's actually connected. The physical test/comparison/evaluation process and procedure is identical. The room, testee, procedure, equipment, and ambient conditions are used are identical. Where *could* a difference arise? I can't prove it - can you prove me wrong? Until there is verification, all we have is speculation. No, we have simple logic as well. I, for one, cannot find a logical explanation for why, for eg., a cloth over the speaker terminals can affect either acoustic performance, or perceptual acuity. As to training, why would that be necessary in this specific situation? Truly, if *you* for example, can identify a clear difference between, say two speaker cables, in an open-ended sighted evaluation, you clearly *have* whatever training is required for such discrimination. Now, if you postulate that when you cover the terminals, leaving *ALL* other parameters constant, and the difference is no longer identifiable, training cannot, logically, be a constraint. Nor can sensitivity, nor test-related stress (they're both tests remember), nor any other factor I can think of. What mechanism would you postulate? Keith Hughes |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
ve.
IOW, like I said. There are bigger and more important anti-science foes for scientists and debunkers to fight, than the ill-informed belief systems of a small cadre of audio hobbyists. The job of 'debunking' should be performed by the audio press. Debunking power crystals and Lockness Monsters is more important? |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
Because blind listening requires a 'remember/compare/match/decide/chose' process where sighted listening only requires 'remember/compare', I suspect blind listening is less sensitive. Keith Hughes wrote: Again, as Tom seemed to be clearly suggesting above, the *only* difference is knowledge of what's actually connected. The physical test/comparison/evaluation process and procedure is identical. No, they aren't. The room, testee, procedure, equipment, and ambient conditions are used are identical. Where *could* a difference arise? The difference *could* arise because the brain function process involved in the two tests are different. The part that is common to both - "remember/compare" is relaxed listening (right brain), not decision-making (left brain). In the blind test the "match/decide/chose" takes part in another part of the brain while audible memory is quickly fading. So where are the *verification* tests showing blind and sighted listening with music have the same sensitivity to detect real audible differences? Regards, Mike |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:wpAQb.141287$xy6.612287@attbi_s02... Unfortunately, your mechanism for controlling bias does not appear to be sensitive enough to detect subtle audible details. (Mkuller) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote: You mean that placing a cloth over amplifer or speaker terminals reduces listener sensitivity? In the same system using the same programs where the original "differences" were observed? Yes. This is the single biggest problem with open-ended blind listening tests - verifying , not just *assuming* it is as sensitive in detecting audible differences as sighted listening. It seems like this should be easy to do. Say, start with volume differences that can be measured and compare the two methods. Then try try some measureable frequency response differences and verify the two types of listening have the same sensitivity. Because blind listening requires a 'remember/compare/match/decide/chose' process where sighted listening only requires 'remember/compare', I suspect blind listening is less sensitive. I can't prove it - can you prove me wrong? Until there is verification, all we have is speculation. Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we wish to evaluate cables. This will be a sighted evaluation, since you don't believe in blind tests. We'll use your system, and connect the new cables in front of your very eyes. But before the test, we put a blanket over the cables so you can't actually see them while under test. The question is: Is this now a sighted test, and will you accept the results as valid? Norm Strong |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
S888Wheel wrote:
ve. IOW, like I said. There are bigger and more important anti-science foes for scientists and debunkers to fight, than the ill-informed belief systems of a small cadre of audio hobbyists. The job of 'debunking' should be performed by the audio press. Debunking power crystals and Lockness Monsters is more important? Both have far more currency in the mainstream media than the myths that audiophiles believe. Like I said, you don't see TV specials about the wonders of green pens. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
snip Keith Hughes wrote: Again, as Tom seemed to be clearly suggesting above, the *only* difference is knowledge of what's actually connected. The physical test/comparison/evaluation process and procedure is identical. No, they aren't. In what way do they differ? The room, testee, procedure, equipment, and ambient conditions are used are identical. Where *could* a difference arise? The difference *could* arise because the brain function process involved in the two tests are different. The part that is common to both - "remember/compare" is relaxed listening (right brain), not decision-making (left brain). In the blind test the "match/decide/chose" takes part in another part of the brain while audible memory is quickly fading. Of course there is the same decision making involved in both tests, how could there not be? You determined a difference with sighted listening (that's the a priori assumption of the entire argument - if it weren't, the results of both sighted *and* blind would be null, and there's no disagreement). That *REQUIRES* a same/different decision. You throw on the blanket, then make the *exact* same comparison, without foreknowledge, and use the *exact same* decision making process. So...again, please point out *any* supposed differences in the approach other than foreknowledge. So where are the *verification* tests showing blind and sighted listening with music have the same sensitivity to detect real audible differences? Once again, where is the justification for "supposing" that, notwithstanding the lack of foreknowledge, the blind test described *in any way* differs from the sighted test? You need to identify some parameter(s) in which the tests actually differ before verification of "same-ness" (or identical sensitivity) could possibly be an issue. Keith Hughes |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:C%WQb.117598$sv6.633004@attbi_s52... Mkuller wrote: So where are the *verification* tests showing blind and sighted listening with music have the same sensitivity to detect real audible differences? I would certainly like to supply that proof. First, however, we have to formulate a hypothesis as to what it is about sighted listening that makes it more sensitive--if indeed it is. Is it the ability to actually see the interconnect, or just knowing what one you're listening to? Or is there something else required? If I substituted a set of Acme model 76-2 interconnects for the ones you are currently using, can you properly evaluate them--sighted of course? Or do you have to be familiar with the manufacturer and his reputation in order to properly evaluate the sound of his cables? Will reading Acme's brochure do the trick? Maybe that still isn't enough; maybe you have to know the MSRP of the cables before you can do a good job? This is a serious question. I'd really like to pin this thing down; I'd like to hear from Mr. Kuller on this issue. Norm Strong |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Both have far more currency in the mainstream media than the myths
that audiophiles believe. Like I said, you don't see TV specials about the wonders of green pens. Actually I do see TV programs that are dedicated to busting myths and urban legends some of which are so obscure I have never heard of them. Maybe you have seen the show. they like to blow things up. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
S888Wheel wrote:
Both have far more currency in the mainstream media than the myths that audiophiles believe. Like I said, you don't see TV specials about the wonders of green pens. Actually I do see TV programs that are dedicated to busting myths and urban legends some of which are so obscure I have never heard of them. Maybe you have seen the show. they like to blow things up. -- Mythbusters is new...maybe they will get around to cables, when they exhaust the usual suspects. Won't make for very exciting TV, though. And of course I didnt' say that skeptics have *never* examined audiophile myths. The green pen hoax has an entry on snopes.com, for example. Skeptical Inquirer has dealt with high-end audio pseudoscience too (see http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/lewindex.htm for references) And this page compiles lots of audio mythbusting info on that's the web: http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioand...epage/id3.html __ -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Hi,
Thanks for all your very informative answers to my original question.Please can't we end this thread now,as it's becoming another rather pointless argument over the validity of double blind testing.Frankly rather boring as well.Neither side will convince the other of the wrong-headedness of their ways. Thanks, Andy [ Moderator's note: I agree, it's getting repetitive again, so it's ended. -- deb ] |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
(Mkuller) wrote:
playing Vivaldi's"Rite of Spring" No wonder they couldn't identify the differences.... Sorry, that's 'Spring' from Vivaldi's "Four Seasons". Regards, Mike |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
(Mkuller) wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote: Yes. This is the single biggest problem with open-ended blind listening tests - verifying , not just *assuming* it is as sensitive in detecting audible differences as sighted listening. (Nousaine) wrote: In the case I described above there were no differences OTHER than the answers were not available with casual visual inspection. IF the real difference had acoustical basis there is no other explanation except that the 'differences' observed were not-based on the 'sound' of the products. How about the sensitivity of the program source being different with the two tests. Subjects used the SAME programs they initially used to establish 'differences' in the amp/wire cases. In the serial tweek experiments subjects brought their own 'highly regarded as uncovering difference" programs and were given a warm-up period as long as needed to establish if there were differences being perceived. On the other hand, I cannot verify differences that are inaudible to me no matter how hard I try, which is what you seem to want someone to do. That was why I was willing to pay my own expenses to verify differences claimed by strong proponents actually existed. It's simply not my problem that listeners who claim "differences" have never been able to demonstrate they exist under even the most favorable of bias-controlled conditions (reference systems, reference programs, single listener choosing position, nothing for bias control except opague cloth over IO terminals. ) I use a compilation of 63 tracks selected specifically because they identify common system errors for all my professional listening evaluation (several hundred home speaker products and systems, several hundred OEM autosound systems and several hundred aftermarket autosound systems) so that I have common program material for EVERY evaluation which by itself helps level playing fields. nousaine Subject sensitivity to sound has been extensively researched over the decades by Bell Labs, the hearing industry and the NRC using bias-controlled listening tests to ensure that the effects being 'heard' were limited to sound and not confounding variables such as common human bias mechanisms. Right. And these sensitivity tests were performed close-ended to verify the sensitivity. For example, an artifact is added to an audible source program at different levels, say pink noise. Subjects are trained to recognize it, then are able to identify it down to say 2dB. Sure and those thresholds have been related to specific acoustical conditions and so far no one has ever identified conditons where measurable level, response and dynamic limitations were not directly tied to true audibility. Now contrast this with an open-ended audio component comparison. Two amplifiers are compared playing Vivaldi's "Rite of Spring" as a source. In sighted listening differences are identified. In blind listening, the panelists were not reliably able to identify the correct amplifier as 'X'. One of the six panelist had a higher score within the confidence limits, but when averaged, the results fell below confidence. This condition has never occured in any set of listener scores that I've analyzed. Were there really audible differences? How can you verify the test using that program was sensitive enough to show them? The two amplifiers use different designs and have measured differences, but the test results are null. If the measured difference lie above the threshold of human hearing they will be heard. The idea that statistical averaging hides sensitive listeners is just a red-herring. That just doesn't happen. In tests where one or two listeners have significant scores the overall score has been positive as well. mkuller It seems like this should be easy to do. Say, start with volume differences that can be measured and compare the two methods. Then try try some measureable frequency response differences and verify the two types of listening have the same sensitivity. And you think this hasn't been done? Toole /Li****z and Vanderkooy have spent a good share of their careers doing this threshold work. nousaine Actually my example clearly shows that blind listening tests are deliciously in-sensitive to non-sonic factors. mkuller Because blind listening requires a 'remember/compare/match/decide/chose' process where sighted listening only requires 'remember/compare', I suspect blind listening is less sensitive. nousaine I don't see any difference between the decision-making process other than un-bias controlled "listening" may often (perhaps usually) may not even require the listening part. In sighted listening, there is no 'X' to identify, the only functions are 'remember/compare'. In a blind test you are required to 'match/chose/decide', in addition. That is THE difference. You still have to choose or grade. There's no extra work. mkuller I can't prove it - can you prove me wrong? nousaine If you can't prove this conjecture why does anyone need to "unprove" it? mkuller Until there is verification, all we have is speculation. nousaine This is the gestalt of the subectivist agrument. If they can't provide any evidence they want others to assume there is no evidence of any kind extant and therefore the answers must be reached through debate. And this is different from the objectivist arguement how? Regards, Mike Because I've traveled thousands of miles trying to find anyone who can verify that he/she can "hear" amps/cables that fall below the known measurable threshold limits. To verify those differences and yet I've not found one that can under conditions that are exactly the same as where differences were claimed with the minir exception that one was asked to prove it with another party watching. I don't need to "debate" whether a given amp/cable sound exists I have evidence that supports my opinions. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:57:03 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
Because I've traveled thousands of miles trying to find anyone who can verify that he/she can "hear" amps/cables that fall below the known measurable threshold limits. Would you be kind enough as to summarize what are those "known measurable threshold limits"? |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
(Mkuller) wrote:
Now contrast this with an open-ended audio component comparison. Two amplifiers are compared playing Vivaldi's "Spring" as a source. In sighted listening differences are identified. In blind listening, the panelists were not reliably able to identify the correct amplifier as 'X'. One of the six panelist had a higher score within the confidence limits, but when averaged, the results fell below confidence. (Nousaine) wrote: This condition has never occured in any set of listener scores that I've analyzed. Selective memory? What about the most famous and one of the only published audio comparison blind tests - Greenhill, 1991, with speaker cables? Were there really audible differences? How can you verify the test using that program was sensitive enough to show them? The two amplifiers use different designs and have measured differences, but the test results are null. If the measured difference lie above the threshold of human hearing they will be heard. The idea that statistical averaging hides sensitive listeners is just a red-herring. That just doesn't happen. In tests where one or two listeners have significant scores the overall score has been positive as well. mkuller It seems like this should be easy to do. Say, start with volume differences that can be measured and compare the two methods. Then try try some measureable frequency response differences and verify the two types of listening have the same sensitivity. And you think this hasn't been done? Toole /Li****z and Vanderkooy have spent a good share of their careers doing this threshold work. Now we're getting somewhere. Can you provide me a reference where they veriified *the sensitivity of a sighted test using music is the same as a blind test using the same program*? nousaine Actually my example clearly shows that blind listening tests are deliciously in-sensitive to non-sonic factors. mkuller Because blind listening requires a 'remember/compare/match/decide/chose' process where sighted listening only requires 'remember/compare', I suspect blind listening is less sensitive. nousaine I don't see any difference between the decision-making process other than un-bias controlled "listening" may often (perhaps usually) may not even require the listening part. In sighted listening, there is no 'X' to identify, the only functions are 'remember/compare'. In a blind test you are required to 'match/chose/decide', in addition. That is THE difference. You still have to choose or grade. There's no extra work. If you are saying there is no difference between the two types of tests in the types of brain functions involved, you are either in denial or missing an important part here. Regards, Mike |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
François Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:57:03 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Because I've traveled thousands of miles trying to find anyone who can verify that he/she can "hear" amps/cables that fall below the known measurable threshold limits. Would you be kind enough as to summarize what are those "known measurable threshold limits"? Sure clipping 1% of the time, level matched with +/- 0.1 dB tolerance standard frequency response over audible range. All easily attainable with modern competent audio amps/cables. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:dFXRb.177445$na.287359@attbi_s04... Furthermore, a sighted test always involves several different parts of the brain, because you're using your eyes, as well as your memory of everything you have ever heard, read, or thought about the products you are comparing. To claim that sighted listening is more sensitive because it involves fewer parts of the brain or less mental processing simply runs counter to the facts. It is LESS sensitive precisely because it involves MORE processing in MORE parts of the brain. Bob- Would you care to restate that as an opinion or an hypothesis? No, I would not. Expectation bias is an established fact, Harry. And it occurs precisely because the brain is simultaneously processing loads of non-sonic information at the same time that it is trying to come to a conclusion about the sonic information. Eliminate the sources of non-sonic information, and you create a far more accurate test. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ High-speed users—be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1 |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Bob Marcus" wrote :
Furthermore, a sighted test always involves several different parts of the brain, because you're using your eyes, as well as your memory of everything you have ever heard, read, or thought about the products you are comparing. To claim that sighted listening is more sensitive because it involves fewer parts of the brain or less mental processing simply runs counter to the facts. It is LESS sensitive precisely because it involves MORE processing in MORE parts of the brain. This is just plain wrong - how did you arrive at this conclusion? Harry Lavo wrote: Would you care to restate that as an opinion or an hypothesis? No, I would not. Expectation bias is an established fact, Harry. Yes, it is. OK so far. And it occurs precisely because the brain is simultaneously processing loads of non-sonic information at the same time that it is trying to come to a conclusion about the sonic information. That's an interesting conclusion - I would have thought it was due to listener *expectations* of two different audible stimuli being different. In fact, in a blind test where nothing is changed, aren't differences usually identified? Any evidence for your statement? Regards, Mike |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote : Furthermore, a sighted test always involves several different parts of the brain, because you're using your eyes, as well as your memory of everything you have ever heard, read, or thought about the products you are comparing. To claim that sighted listening is more sensitive because it involves fewer parts of the brain or less mental processing simply runs counter to the facts. It is LESS sensitive precisely because it involves MORE processing in MORE parts of the brain. This is just plain wrong - how did you arrive at this conclusion? Harry Lavo wrote: Would you care to restate that as an opinion or an hypothesis? No, I would not. Expectation bias is an established fact, Harry. Yes, it is. OK so far. And it occurs precisely because the brain is simultaneously processing loads of non-sonic information at the same time that it is trying to come to a conclusion about the sonic information. That's an interesting conclusion - I would have thought it was due to listener *expectations* of two different audible stimuli being different. And those expectations result from the non-sonic information--seeing the cables, or having formed a prior impression of them. Don't take the word "expectation" literally, here. It doesn't require a conscious pre-judgment. Indeed, many people who have consciously "expected" two things to sound the same have perceived them differently in a listening test (and reported so here). That doesn't mean they weren't affected by expectation bias. This bias rears its ugly head subconsicously *during* the listening test. I think the best way to understand this is to think of the brain as synthesizing all of the information it has available to it--what you see, what you hear, what you've read or heard about the product in the past--at the time you are conducting the comparison. Most of the time in life, synthesizing available information is exactly what you want your brain to do. Listening comparisons may be one of the rare cases where you don't want that synthesis--you want your brain to respond based solely on what you hear at that moment. Alas, the survival of our primate ancestors did not depend on the ability to isolate information from a single sensory organ, so it wasn't a skill we developed. In fact, in a blind test where nothing is changed, aren't differences usually identified? I'd say "often," not "usually," since I can't say it happens more or less than 50% of the time. (Tom N. may have better data on this.) Again, this is expectation bias, based on the non-sonic "knowledge" that something *has* changed. Your brain has two conflicting pieces of information: the sound, which we agree is identical from A to B; and the belief that a different mechanism is making the sound. Not surprisingly, your brain produces conflicting results in that case. Note that this phenomenon occurs even in sighted listening, when someone fails to flip a switch. Several people here have testified to that experience. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:t9dSb.180943$xy6.868893@attbi_s02... Harry Lavo wrote: "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:dFXRb.177445$na.287359@attbi_s04... Furthermore, a sighted test always involves several different parts of the brain, because you're using your eyes, as well as your memory of everything you have ever heard, read, or thought about the products you are comparing. To claim that sighted listening is more sensitive because it involves fewer parts of the brain or less mental processing simply runs counter to the facts. It is LESS sensitive precisely because it involves MORE processing in MORE parts of the brain. Bob- Would you care to restate that as an opinion or an hypothesis? No, I would not. Expectation bias is an established fact, Harry. And it occurs precisely because the brain is simultaneously processing loads of non-sonic information at the same time that it is trying to come to a conclusion about the sonic information. Eliminate the sources of non-sonic information, and you create a far more accurate test. I take it then that there is no neurological support for your claim? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How to Post to Usenet | Car Audio | |||
| [Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
| [Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
| [Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
| [Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
