Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

Harry Lavo wrote:

"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?


What, do you deny that there is neurological evidence that visual and sonic
information are processed by different parts of the brain? Do you deny that
long-term memory (of, say, equipment reviews) resides in yet another part of
the brain? And while we're at it, do you deny that we learned anything about
how the mind works before the invention of the functional MRI?

Please, Harry, this is too basic to even talk about.

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

  #43   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

"Bob Marcus" wrote:

Mkuller wrote:


....snip to content....

Harry Lavo wrote:


....snip to content....


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.)


I conducted in the early 90s an experiment that showed that adult humans will
regularly, just over 3/4 of the time, report 'differences' when given 2
identical sound presentations. And when given 2 presentations where one of
those was 1-dB louder than the other would "prefer" the louder alternative and
describe preference choices as based on sound quality reasons (never on
loudness.)

Again, this is
expectation bias, based on the non-sonic "knowledge" that something *has*
changed.


I'm not certain I would call it "expectation" bias as such but it is apparently
a built-in human bias mechanism (audio professionals and enthusiasts showed no
significant difference from men-in-the-street.

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.


Indeed. I began using controlled listening tests precisely because once when I
was demonstrating a "tweek" effect I obtained the expected result and only
afterward found that tweek was actually "out-of-circuit" during the
presentation.

  #44   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

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

"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?


What, do you deny that there is neurological evidence that visual and

sonic
information are processed by different parts of the brain? Do you deny

that
long-term memory (of, say, equipment reviews) resides in yet another part

of
the brain? And while we're at it, do you deny that we learned anything

about
how the mind works before the invention of the functional MRI?


Please do not go condescending on me. And please don't start trying to put
the onus on me. You made a statement that implied that one part of the
brain being active diminished the sensitivity of another part. I questioned
whether this was fact. You gave me your rationale instead. I asked if
their was neurological evidence of this. You haven't answered.

Yes, musical processing and emotional processing and visual processing do
take place in different parts of the brain as far as I know. Now I asked
you a question in response to your assertion that "It is LESS sensitive
precisely because it involves MORE processing in MORE parts of the brain".
That is a statement presented as fact which should be supportable by
evidence. I have asked you for it, since I believe it is your
opinion...considered...but still just your opinion. A bit like a
subjectivist "guessing" at a technical mechanism to explain their
observation. I am still waiting and you can still back off presenting it
as "fact".

  #45   Report Post  
normanstrong
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:8AeSb.139348$sv6.754480@attbi_s52...
"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


I've asked this question before, but nobody has seen fit to answer it:
What is it that makes a sighted test sighted? Those of you who feel
that blind testing "obscures" audible differences that are easily
heard sighted--what do you mean by "sighted?"

Does the component in question have to actually be visible for the
advantages of sighted testing to be realized--or is it sufficient
simply to know the identify of the component? Suppose everything is
known; what it looks like, who made it and the model number. Is that
sufficient? Maybe one has to know all about the company, its
reputation and the price of the component?

Just what is it that makes a test "sighted?"

Norm Strong


  #47   Report Post  
L Mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

x
  #48   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

(Nousaine) wrote:
This condition has never occured in any set of listener scores that I've
analyzed.


(Mkuller) wrote:
Selective memory? What about the most famous and one of the only published
audio comparison blind tests - Greenhill, 1991, with speaker cables?



That wasn't shown to be the case in that experiment. You seem to be
'remembering' another argument that a spread of scoring in a null test
represented a "true difference" in performance when it is clear that flipping
a
coin also would represent a spread of scoring even with random probability.


What about the "golden ear" that Greenhill mentioned? What about the two
"experienced listeners" versus the one non-experienced one in the Swedish audio
group's CD player comparison?

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*?



Of course not; because that work clearly shows that a sighted test is much
lower in sensitivity to aocustical cause due to the masking effect on
non-sonic
causes. That's why figurative "blinding" is necessary .... to limit influence
to acoustical stimuli.


I'm not sure that makes sense. We're talking about comparing tests where the
differences are *known*. So what you're saying is there is still no
verification that the sensitivity of a sighted test with a music program is
identical to that of a blind test with the same program. If it's hasn't been
verified on a known difference, how can you assume it is valid in a comparison
where no one knows whether there is a difference, and if there is, what the
differences are and their relative magnitude. That's triple or quadruple blind
isn't it?
Regards,
Mike

  #49   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


Mkuller wrote:
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?


Marcus wrote:
No, I would not. Expectation bias is an established fact, Harry.


mkuller
Yes, it is. OK so far.


Marcus
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.


mkuller
That's an interesting conclusion - I would have thought it was due to
listener
*expectations* of two different audible stimuli being different.



Marcus
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.


We're talking about two different audio component comparison tests - one
*sighted* and one *blind*. Unless the subjects are the Who's Tommy (deaf and
blind), they will be processing information from their five senses equally in
BOTH tests - regardless of what anyone has seen or read in the past.

Marcus
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.


The only way to do *that* would be to perform the listening test in a sensory
isolation tank.

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.


Or one that is relavant to *blind* versus *sighted* listening because the
subject is not really *blind*. Alas?

mkuller
In fact, in a
blind test where nothing is changed, aren't differences usually identified?



Marcus
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.


My point is - if it occurs at all in *blind* listening, it cannot be because of
sighted cues interferring with the brain's processing - which is what you are
claiming. Geesh.
Regards,
Mike

  #50   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

normanstrong wrote:
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:8AeSb.139348$sv6.754480@attbi_s52...
"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


I've asked this question before, but nobody has seen fit to answer it:
What is it that makes a sighted test sighted? Those of you who feel
that blind testing "obscures" audible differences that are easily
heard sighted--what do you mean by "sighted?"


Does the component in question have to actually be visible for the
advantages of sighted testing to be realized--or is it sufficient
simply to know the identify of the component? Suppose everything is
known; what it looks like, who made it and the model number. Is that
sufficient? Maybe one has to know all about the company, its
reputation and the price of the component?


Just what is it that makes a test "sighted?"


'Sighted' in the context of a blind protocol means:
knowing the identity of the item currently being tested/evaluated/compared, at
the moment the test datum is collected.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director



  #51   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


Mkuller wrote:
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?


Marcus wrote:
No, I would not. Expectation bias is an established fact, Harry.


mkuller
Yes, it is. OK so far.


Marcus
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.


mkuller
That's an interesting conclusion - I would have thought it was due to
listener
*expectations* of two different audible stimuli being different.



Marcus
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.


We're talking about two different audio component comparison tests - one
*sighted* and one *blind*. Unless the subjects are the Who's Tommy (deaf and
blind), they will be processing information from their five senses equally in
BOTH tests - regardless of what anyone has seen or read in the past.


You're getting wrapped up in semantic knots 'blinded', 'sighted'

Prior knowledge -- whether accurate or not, and whether derived
from sense impression or from verbal or written communication -- can
bias cognitive evaluation of *current* sensory input.
A simple example is when listeners are *told* that a condition has
been changed, but it actually hasn't been.
There will be a strong bias to 'hear' a difference anyway. This is
true even if the visual input hasn't changed either.

Marcus
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.


The only way to do *that* would be to perform the listening test in a sensory
isolation tank.


No, you do it by simply making one piece of information
*unavailable* to the listener at the time of audition -- namely, the
identity of the device or treatment currently playing. The only
cues to that, should be what is *heard*. Otherwise there's
a signficant chance the identification was made based on factors *other*
than the audible.

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.


Or one that is relavant to *blind* versus *sighted* listening because the
subject is not really *blind*. Alas?


You are using the word *blind* incorrectly in this context.

My point is - if it occurs at all in *blind* listening, it cannot be because of
sighted cues interferring with the brain's processing - which is what you are
claiming. Geesh.


He is claimign that non-audible information -- including, but NOT limited to,
current visual input -- can bias judgement of sense impressions. 'Sighted' merely
means knowing the *identity* of the device or sound source currently under
test. You can actually be looking at both cables during a cable comparison, but
so long as you do not know which one is currently in the circuit, it's a 'blind'
test.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

  #52   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


Steven Sullivan wrote:
Prior knowledge -- whether accurate or not, and whether derived
from sense impression or from verbal or written communication -- can
bias cognitive evaluation of *current* sensory input.
A simple example is when listeners are *told* that a condition has
been changed, but it actually hasn't been. snipperroo
He is claimign that non-audible information -- including, but NOT limited to,
current visual input -- can bias judgement of sense impressions. 'Sighted'
merely
means knowing the *identity* of the device or sound source currently under
test. You can actually be looking at both cables during a cable comparison,
but
so long as you do not know which one is currently in the circuit, it's a
'blind'
test.


While your efforts to come to Mr. Marcus' support is laudible, you are not
correct. If you carefully read exactly what Marcus says above, he is stating
that input from other senses including the eyes and the memory interferes with
brain function during *sighted* testing, but not *blind* testing. There
appears to be no basis for that claim.
Regards,
Mike
  #53   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

Harry Lavo wrote:

So following this logic, an audio only test uses less of the brain.


Certainly in the sense that the portion(s) of the brain making the
same/different decision are not receiving certain stimuli that it/they would
be receiving in a sighted comparison.

ergo,
using more processing in more parts of the brain must interfere somehow
with
this audio processing.


Not "interfering." But in a sighted test it would be responding to different
(and at a rather practical level, more) stimuli.

...otherwise the audio processing would be just as
valid as ever. I've asked for the scientifc studies showing how this
happens, neurologically,


As Dr. Mirabel has so rightly pointed out to you already, we know
approximately nothing about HOW the brain processes anything...

which it seems to me you must have in order to
assert it as fact, rather than supposition that this is the cause of
"sighted bias".


....but we don't need neurological evidence to know that the brain processes
different stimuli differently, because as we change the stimuli we get
different responses. And in the case of listening tests, when we remove
certain stimuli, we get more sensitive tests.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
What are the 5 hot job markets for 2004? Click here to find out.
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/...dec03_hotmail1
  #55   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


snip

If you carefully read exactly what Marcus says above, he is stating
that input from other senses including the eyes and the memory interferes
with
brain function during *sighted* testing, but not *blind* testing.


And if you read REALLY carefully, you'll notice that I say no such thing.
Saying that a sighted test is less sensitive does not in any way imply any
"interference" in brain function. The brain function in deciding whether two
cables are the same or different is exactly the same. One test simply
involves fewer stimuli than the other. In particular, the lack of knowledge
about which cable is which eliminates from consideration any information
stored in long-term memory about the two cables or their
manaufacturers--price, reviews, reputations, etc.

There
appears to be no basis for that claim.


There is certainly no basis for the claim which you put into my mouth.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here.
https://broadband.msn.com


  #57   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

You are talking about misdirection. Yeah people are suseptable to
misdirection.



What if the non-change was self-imposed and accidental, as in where one
discovers after the decision that the switch was in a different position than
supposed?


Whether misdirection is accidental or done on purpose it is still misdirection.
I would suspect your tests using misdirection are quite incomplete. I suspect
if you had done the test twice,once with the specific directions stating that
there may or may not be an audible difference when the switch is made you would
have eliminated the effect of deliberate misdirection. If the results of such a
control test were the same as your test which used deliberate misdirection you
could then claim that the misdirection was not a factor.Certainly if you tell
the testees that there will be a difference they are more likely to to for and
find one that doesn't exist. Like I said, I bet you could easily get the same
mistakes from people who expect no difference will be present when one actually
is present.







One could say that sameness in components could also be imagined if the
listener believes ahead of time that no difference exists. That means every
ABX
DBT that has been done with people who believe no difference exists between
the
components in question is tainted with expectation bias unless a control was
used in the test for that bias such as the random insertion of a known barly
audible distortion.



The Candid Camera wine test shows that the nominal expectation bias of humans
is a false positive no matter what the sense.


I don't know anything about this test. But your test involved deliberate
misdirection. I don't think it proves much. We know that people can be fooled
by magicians.

Even so, how do you insert a
"barely", or even "obvious", audible effect (such as wire sound) that has
never been shown to exist?


You don't. You insert one that has been shown to exist. Maybe you didn't
understand what I was proposing.



No, you do it by simply making one piece of information
*unavailable* to the listener at the time of audition -- namely, the
identity of the device or treatment currently playing. The only
cues to that, should be what is *heard*. Otherwise there's
a signficant chance the identification was made based on factors *other*
than the audible.


Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis. Take the testee out of the
envirement and all bets are off on sensitivity. The interaction of senses

is
complex and critical in sensitivty of the senses



So blind people don't have a sense of taste when they aren't in their
reference
kitchen?


Of course they do if they have enough experience tasting things as a blind
person. I guess you have never tried to identify things by taste while
blindfolded. Try it with many different samples and see how well you fare.

  #58   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

You are talking about misdirection.

Yes, as *one kind* of prior knowledge...the most extreme kind.


And being the most extreme kind it is likely to wrought the most extreme kind
of results.


Yeah people are suseptable to misdirection.
One could say that sameness in components could also be imagined if the
listener believes ahead of time that no difference exists.


One could imagine that, but perceptual psychology says the stronger
tendancy is to experience *difference*.


I would like to see a citation of any study in perceptual psychology that
suggests this is true. I'll bet if it has been studied the studies would show
the pre-existing bias would prove far more powerful than any universal tendency
to percieve a difference. People, by and large, go through life not noticing
differences that do exist every bit as much as they percieve differences that
don't exist. But like coincidences vs. noncoincidences the failure to note
small but real differences in our sensery perception goes largely unnoticed.



That means every ABX
DBT that has been done with people who believe no difference exists
between the components in question is tainted with expectation bias unless

a control was
used in the test for that bias such as the random insertion of a known

barly
audible distortion.



Again, 'expectation bias' isn't necessarily conscious expectation...


I don't believe that. Claims of the effects of the "subconscious" mind on the
conscious mind are highly debated. If you can cite any scientific claims that
"subconscious" biases are at work in the effects of expectation bias I'd like
to read about it. I am betting that none of the studdies on the effects of
expectation bias make any claims that the expectation bias is subconscious.


it's not a matter of going into the test, saying to yourself, I *will*
hear a difference.



I think it very much is. That is why I think deliberate misdirection is an
obvious flaw in testing for normal expectation bias. The deck is stacked.




And, too, when are ABX tests performed to test a claim of 'no difference'?



Every time Tom does such a test.


All the ones I've sen reported involved people who claimed they could
hear a difference between A and B; if not, there would be no point in
continuing the test.


You are not a reference for recording all such tests.


Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully

identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis.


I'd require taste and smell, most likely. ANyone who's had a cold knows
that a stuffed nose reduces taste sensitivity. And that's been confirmed
medically, and the anatomical basis is known.


I figured that was understood. I was refering to literal blindfolding. Try it
with amny differnt samples and see how well you do.



Take the testee out of the
envirement and all bets are off on sensitivity.


No, Scott. All bets aren't off. We know that certain
changes to the environment reduce sensitivity. Others could
be expected to have little or no effect. This stuff has
been studied.


I am sure it has been studied. I am not so sure it has been accurately reported
on RAHE.



The interaction of senses is
complex and critical in sensitivty of the senses.


In some cases, for some senses, yes.

But *that's beside the point anyway*. We're not talking about blocking
any of the senses. It's not analogous to stuffing someone's nose and
asking them to identify a flavor. We aren't talking about blindfolding the
testee.
or dong the test in the dark. We aren't damping down the sense of sight.
We are only talking about keeping the identity unknown at the time of actual

listening. You can *SEE* both devices
under test, during the test, if you like. You just can't *know* which
one is playing. How could that possibly be construed as changing the
interaction of the senses?


I was talking about deliberate misdirection.

  #60   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:GdxTb.163713$sv6.894310@attbi_s52...
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes:

I'm only claiming that memories of subtle audible differences fade more

quickly
than memories of large, gross differences, whatever they may be. You

have any
evidence to the contrary?


OK, if subtle audible differences fade quickly, doesn't that validate
the findings of DBT'ers that quick switching is the best way to
determine differences?


No, because those subtle differences often take time to be recognized and
enter consciousness.



er...how on earth does thsi work, Harry? You listen to A for as long as you
like. You listen to B for a long as you like. You switch between them
as often as you like, until the subtle differences are recognized and
enter your consciousness.

'Quick switching' merely means that when you *do* want
to switch between A and B (or X and A/B), the actual switching occurs
'instantanously', rather than with a long lag of no sound. You can *insert*
such a lag into the process if you like, if that's what you think it
takes for the differences to be recognized and enter consciousness.
Mkuller seems to agree that inserting such a lag would promote the loss of
accurate memory of subtle audible difference.


Why do 'objectivists' have to keep explaining this stuff to you guys over
and over and over?




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director



  #61   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

S888Wheel wrote:
You are talking about misdirection.


Yes, as *one kind* of prior knowledge...the most extreme kind.


And being the most extreme kind it is likely to wrought the most extreme kind
of results.



Even if less extreme kinds yield 'less extreme' results ...which is not
conceded...do you agree that prior knowledge still biases sighted
comparison to some degree?


Yeah people are suseptable to misdirection.
One could say that sameness in components could also be imagined if the
listener believes ahead of time that no difference exists.


One could imagine that, but perceptual psychology says the stronger
tendancy is to experience *difference*.


I would like to see a citation of any study in perceptual psychology that
suggests this is true. I'll bet if it has been studied the studies would show
the pre-existing bias would prove far more powerful than any universal tendency
to percieve a difference. People, by and large, go through life not noticing
differences that do exist every bit as much as they percieve differences that
don't exist.



I wold like to see a citation of any study in perceptual psychology that
suggests this is true.

But like coincidences vs. noncoincidences the failure to note
small but real differences in our sensery perception goes largely unnoticed.


Not when a person is comparing two things. There, the tendancy is to
report difference...perhaps it's of a piece with the 'coincidence' thing,
where peopel tend to impart *meaning* to things merely based
on temporal proximity or some other possibly spurious 'connection'.
IIRC such errors of judgement are covered in the book
Inevitable Illusions : How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds
by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a professor of cognitive science at UAZ.



That means every ABX
DBT that has been done with people who believe no difference exists
between the components in question is tainted with expectation bias unless

a control was
used in the test for that bias such as the random insertion of a known

barly
audible distortion.



Again, 'expectation bias' isn't necessarily conscious expectation...


I don't believe that. Claims of the effects of the "subconscious" mind on the
conscious mind are highly debated. If you can cite any scientific claims that
"subconscious" biases are at work in the effects of expectation bias I'd like
to read about it. I am betting that none of the studdies on the effects of
expectation bias make any claims that the expectation bias is subconscious.



it's not a matter of going into the test, saying to yourself, I *will*
hear a difference.



I think it very much is. That is why I think deliberate misdirection is an
obvious flaw in testing for normal expectation bias. The deck is stacked.


Scott, controlled comparison for audible difference does not usually
involve *deliberate misdirection*, so please abandon this straw man
argument immediately. I merely used that example as a pretty foolproof way
to highlight the inherent tendency towards *hearing* difference when some
other sort of difference exists (either real or imagined).


And, too, when are ABX tests performed to test a claim of 'no difference'?


Every time Tom does such a test.


When has Tom tested a claim of *no difference*, rather than a claim of
*difference*?

All the ones I've sen reported involved people who claimed they could
hear a difference between A and B; if not, there would be no point in
continuing the test.


You are not a reference for recording all such tests.


You aren't a reference for scientifically-founded ideas. It doesn't stop
you from proclaiming your lack of belief in them as if it were some sort of
dispositive argument.


Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully

identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis.


I'd require taste and smell, most likely. ANyone who's had a cold knows
that a stuffed nose reduces taste sensitivity. And that's been confirmed
medically, and the anatomical basis is known.


I figured that was understood. I was refering to literal blindfolding. Try it
with amny differnt samples and see how well you do.


We aren't talking about literal blindfolding of ABX /DBT testees, ever.
We aren't talking about blocking any of the senses.


Take the testee out of the
envirement and all bets are off on sensitivity.


No, Scott. All bets aren't off. We know that certain
changes to the environment reduce sensitivity. Others could
be expected to have little or no effect. This stuff has
been studied.


I am sure it has been studied. I am not so sure it has been accurately reported
on RAHE.


See above re : dispositive arguments. OF cousre, you could always do what
has been suggested many times to you: take the time to go do the research
in your local university library to your own satisfaction, and report back
to us.

Piatelli-Palmarini's book, btw, is avaialble cheaply from amazon.com


The interaction of senses is
complex and critical in sensitivty of the senses.


In some cases, for some senses, yes.

But *that's beside the point anyway*. We're not talking about blocking
any of the senses. It's not analogous to stuffing someone's nose and
asking them to identify a flavor. We aren't talking about blindfolding the
testee.
or dong the test in the dark. We aren't damping down the sense of sight.
We are only talking about keeping the identity unknown at the time of actual

listening. You can *SEE* both devices
under test, during the test, if you like. You just can't *know* which
one is playing. How could that possibly be construed as changing the
interaction of the senses?


I was talking about deliberate misdirection.


Deliberate misdirection doesn't necessarily involve hindering any senses.

If two cables or amps or CD players -- for giggles, let's make one a
hgih-end brand and the other a mass-market brand -- are hooked up to a
switchbox, with the switch and the components *always in view*, and the
proctor says the 'up' position opf the switch is DUT A and the 'down'
position is DUT B, when in fact both positions are DUT A, it's an
excellent bet that the golden ear testee will hear big differences between
the switch positions. Where have any of the senses been thwarted in this
deliberate misdirection protocol?


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

  #62   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:GdxTb.163713$sv6.894310@attbi_s52...
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes:

I'm only claiming that memories of subtle audible differences fade

more
quickly
than memories of large, gross differences, whatever they may be. You

have any
evidence to the contrary?

OK, if subtle audible differences fade quickly, doesn't that validate
the findings of DBT'ers that quick switching is the best way to
determine differences?


No, because those subtle differences often take time to be recognized

and
enter consciousness.



er...how on earth does thsi work, Harry? You listen to A for as long as

you
like. You listen to B for a long as you like. You switch between them
as often as you like, until the subtle differences are recognized and
enter your consciousness.

'Quick switching' merely means that when you *do* want
to switch between A and B (or X and A/B), the actual switching occurs
'instantanously', rather than with a long lag of no sound. You can

*insert*
such a lag into the process if you like, if that's what you think it
takes for the differences to be recognized and enter consciousness.
Mkuller seems to agree that inserting such a lag would promote the loss of
accurate memory of subtle audible difference.


Why do 'objectivists' have to keep explaining this stuff to you guys over
and over and over?


You don't. It's a function of not really understanding or acknowledging on
*your* part what we are saying.

For open ended evaluation, you don't know initially what you are looking
for. It make days for things to gel that "a" sounds somewhat thisway, and
"b" sounds somewhat more thatway. From extended, evaluative listening and
non-quick switching. Then a tentative conclusion is drawn. Now you know
what you are listening "for". It may be something subtle and perceptual,
such as "imaging". Once you have it firmly grasped in mind what the
signature is of "a" and how it might vary from "b", quick switching can help
precisely because it "interupts" the perception you have grasped and altered
it slightly (or not) over the flow of music.

We are talking about open-ended component evaluation. If I simply give you
two components, say "different" or "same", or "is it a" or "is it b" and
force a choice quick switching works against you because you haven't yet
really been able to determine what it is you are listening for in audio
terms. "Same" or "different" are not audio terms. They are "sound
artifact" terms on simple one or two dimensions.

Under quick switching under these circumstances, the brain seems to "panic"
in that it can't sort audio patterns quickly and has no frame of reference;
this by itself creates anxiety, which in turn creates even more confusion
and panic. I believe this is why audiophiles cite stress and fatigue in
trying to do this kind of testing when dealing with very subtle, perceptual
factors and why the test favors a "null conclusion" unless we are dealing
with straightforward factors that the sensate function can handle without
much need for the intuitive or emotional functions (volume, frequency
response).

Do I know this for sure? No. But it is reasonable and verifiable. That is
why I proposed a control test that is double-blind, relaxed, evaluative, and
leisurely. Along with testing of the same respondents using sighted,
evaluative listening and at another time relatively short, terse,
comparative ("same","different") double- blind testing as is traditionally
recommended here.

If the control test gave results similar to traditional dbt/abx, it would
verify that that traditional dbt/abx testing was a valid "shortcut" to
evaluative testing. If the control test gave results similar to sighted
open-ended evaluative testing, then it would suggest that evaluative testing
even though sighted was a more encompassing and valid approach for component
evaluation.

So if you really want to stop the "jaw flapping" and try to resolve the
differences of the two camps, first you have to acknowledge the possibility
that we might have a point, and that it is worth trying to resolve somehow.

Just as we acknowledge that traditional dbt/abx testing works fine for
simple volume and frequency response differences, and artifact detection,
which allow simple one or two dimensional evaluations.
  #63   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:GdxTb.163713$sv6.894310@attbi_s52...
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes:

I'm only claiming that memories of subtle audible differences fade

more
quickly
than memories of large, gross differences, whatever they may be. You

have any
evidence to the contrary?

OK, if subtle audible differences fade quickly, doesn't that validate
the findings of DBT'ers that quick switching is the best way to
determine differences?


No, because those subtle differences often take time to be recognized

and
enter consciousness.



er...how on earth does thsi work, Harry? You listen to A for as long as

you
like. You listen to B for a long as you like. You switch between them
as often as you like, until the subtle differences are recognized and
enter your consciousness.

'Quick switching' merely means that when you *do* want
to switch between A and B (or X and A/B), the actual switching occurs
'instantanously', rather than with a long lag of no sound. You can

*insert*
such a lag into the process if you like, if that's what you think it
takes for the differences to be recognized and enter consciousness.
Mkuller seems to agree that inserting such a lag would promote the loss of
accurate memory of subtle audible difference.


Why do 'objectivists' have to keep explaining this stuff to you guys over
and over and over?


I've responded at length in another post.

  #65   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:A2FTb.169847$nt4.758669@attbi_s51...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:GdxTb.163713$sv6.894310@attbi_s52...
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes:

I'm only claiming that memories of subtle audible differences fade

more
quickly
than memories of large, gross differences, whatever they may be. You

have any
evidence to the contrary?

OK, if subtle audible differences fade quickly, doesn't that validate
the findings of DBT'ers that quick switching is the best way to
determine differences?


No, because those subtle differences often take time to be recognized and
enter consciousness.


Ok; but what process causes experienced audiophiles to 'forget' learned

and
conscious sonic attributes when nothing but a cloth is placed over

speaker/amp
terminals AND an only recently encountered device is

inserted/not-inserted. Why
would the subject now be unable to tell the cry of his "baby" from that of

a
relative stranger?

And IF that condition suddenly causes the subject to "forget" even

familiar
sound how can we be sure that Kuller isn't right and sonic memory

disappears in
"microseconds?"

That's where your argument eventually leads. I believe that audible memory

is
quite robust; it becomes fleeting ONLY if the effect were imagined in the

first
place. Otherwise we would have to re-learn the sound of instruments for

every
concert.


The simple answer is your understanding/answer to the issue is far too
simplistic. I've explained the process and why a control test is needed in
two other posts. Once you read them, I hope you'll better undertstand where
we (I at least) am coming from and why "simply throwing a blanket over the
terminals" is not an answer.



  #66   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

You are talking about misdirection.

Yes, as *one kind* of prior knowledge...the most extreme kind.


And being the most extreme kind it is likely to wrought the most extreme

kind
of results.



Even if less extreme kinds yield 'less extreme' results ...which is not
conceded...do you agree that prior knowledge still biases sighted
comparison to some degree?


Yes, if the knowledge has some meaning to the testee.


Yeah people are suseptable to misdirection.
One could say that sameness in components could also be imagined if the
listener believes ahead of time that no difference exists.

One could imagine that, but perceptual psychology says the stronger
tendancy is to experience *difference*.


I would like to see a citation of any study in perceptual psychology that
suggests this is true. I'll bet if it has been studied the studies would

show
the pre-existing bias would prove far more powerful than any universal

tendency
to percieve a difference. People, by and large, go through life not

noticing
differences that do exist every bit as much as they percieve differences

that
don't exist.



I wold like to see a citation of any study in perceptual psychology that
suggests this is true.


Hmm I asked for citations to support your claim and none were given. Unlike
your assertion I do not claim mine is based on any scientific study. Do you
really disagree with the assertion that people go through life not noticing
subtle differences in their day to day life and this lack of notice goes
unnoted for the same reason noncoincidences go unnoted?


But like coincidences vs. noncoincidences the failure to note
small but real differences in our sensery perception goes largely

unnoticed.




Not when a person is comparing two things. There, the tendancy is to
report difference...perhaps it's of a piece with the 'coincidence' thing,
where peopel tend to impart *meaning* to things merely based
on temporal proximity or some other possibly spurious 'connection'.
IIRC such errors of judgement are covered in the book
Inevitable Illusions : How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds
by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a professor of cognitive science at UAZ.


I don't think your assertion is so universal. Many people involved in QC in
many different areas of production make unbias controled evaluations and do a
very good job of it.


That means every ABX
DBT that has been done with people who believe no difference exists
between the components in question is tainted with expectation bias

unless
a control was
used in the test for that bias such as the random insertion of a known
barly
audible distortion.



Again, 'expectation bias' isn't necessarily conscious expectation...


I don't believe that. Claims of the effects of the "subconscious" mind on

the
conscious mind are highly debated. If you can cite any scientific claims

that
"subconscious" biases are at work in the effects of expectation bias I'd

like
to read about it. I am betting that none of the studdies on the effects of
expectation bias make any claims that the expectation bias is subconscious.




it's not a matter of going into the test, saying to yourself, I *will*
hear a difference.



I think it very much is. That is why I think deliberate misdirection is an
obvious flaw in testing for normal expectation bias. The deck is stacked.



Scott, controlled comparison for audible difference does not usually
involve *deliberate misdirection*, so please abandon this straw man
argument immediately.


There is no straw man argument since I was specifically refering to Tom's tests
which did involve misdirection.

I merely used that example as a pretty foolproof way
to highlight the inherent tendency towards *hearing* difference when some
other sort of difference exists (either real or imagined).


If you don't want me to address a specific example then maybe it shouldn't be
used.


And, too, when are ABX tests performed to test a claim of 'no difference'?


Every time Tom does such a test.


When has Tom tested a claim of *no difference*, rather than a claim of
*difference*?


This smells of a semantic argument. If you are testing one you are testing the
other. Tom's position of no difference is well known.


All the ones I've sen reported involved people who claimed they could
hear a difference between A and B; if not, there would be no point in
continuing the test.


You are not a reference for recording all such tests.


You aren't a reference for scientifically-founded ideas. It doesn't stop
you from proclaiming your lack of belief in them as if it were some sort of
dispositive argument.


Complete nonsense. I have NEVER claimed any lack of belief in scientifically
founded ideas. I think many such ideas have been grossly misrepresented on RAO
though. I have spoken out about those misrepresentations.


Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully
identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis.

I'd require taste and smell, most likely. ANyone who's had a cold knows
that a stuffed nose reduces taste sensitivity. And that's been confirmed
medically, and the anatomical basis is known.


I figured that was understood. I was refering to literal blindfolding. Try

it
with amny differnt samples and see how well you do.


We aren't talking about literal blindfolding of ABX /DBT testees, ever.
We aren't talking about blocking any of the senses.


I know. I was using that as an extreme example of how such changes can
profoundly affect sensitivity. I am not claiming that ABX DBTs do affect
sensitivity but that it may do so when listening to music. It does inherently
change the way people listen. It does not surprise me that people can hear
differences more easily with pink noise than with music in quick switching time
synced ABX DBTs. When one listens to music and uses quick switching one is
never comparing the same source. At least with pink noise the sourse doesn't
change. I think it would be interesting to do ABX DBTs with source samples of
music that are replayed in their entirety with each switch rather than a real
time switch of an on going musical source that is ever changing in sound. It
does seem to me that pink noise and a few other test signals that do not change
or can be replayed in their entirety would make for one less variable and would
make for a far more sensitive test.


Take the testee out of the
envirement and all bets are off on sensitivity.

No, Scott. All bets aren't off. We know that certain
changes to the environment reduce sensitivity. Others could
be expected to have little or no effect. This stuff has
been studied.


I am sure it has been studied. I am not so sure it has been accurately

reported
on RAHE.



See above re : dispositive arguments. OF cousre, you could always do what
has been suggested many times to you: take the time to go do the research
in your local university library to your own satisfaction, and report back
to us.

Piatelli-Palmarini's book, btw, is avaialble cheaply from amazon.com


I have made such purchases in the past only to find out that indeed the
information had been misrepresented on RAHE. I have no interest in buying books
only to find out I am right. If I am wrong it is easy enough to quote a passage
from any such book that shows it to be so.


The interaction of senses is
complex and critical in sensitivty of the senses.

In some cases, for some senses, yes.

But *that's beside the point anyway*. We're not talking about blocking
any of the senses. It's not analogous to stuffing someone's nose and
asking them to identify a flavor. We aren't talking about blindfolding

the
testee.
or dong the test in the dark. We aren't damping down the sense of sight.
We are only talking about keeping the identity unknown at the time of

actual

listening. You can *SEE* both devices
under test, during the test, if you like. You just can't *know* which
one is playing. How could that possibly be construed as changing the
interaction of the senses?


I was talking about deliberate misdirection.


Deliberate misdirection doesn't necessarily involve hindering any senses.


It sure does indirectly.


If two cables or amps or CD players -- for giggles, let's make one a
hgih-end brand and the other a mass-market brand -- are hooked up to a
switchbox, with the switch and the components *always in view*, and the
proctor says the 'up' position opf the switch is DUT A and the 'down'
position is DUT B, when in fact both positions are DUT A, it's an
excellent bet that the golden ear testee will hear big differences between
the switch positions. Where have any of the senses been thwarted in this
deliberate misdirection protocol?


This has nothing to do with the specific tests that Tom did which he claims as
proof that people will so regularly imagine differences. That is the specific
misdirection that I am saying is stacking the deck and possibly giving skewed
results. I am saying that the same misdirection in reverse would probably
wrought similar mistaken results with testees failing to detect real
differences. That's all.

  #67   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

(S888Wheel) wrote:

You are talking about misdirection.


Yes, as *one kind* of prior knowledge...the most extreme kind.


And being the most extreme kind it is likely to wrought the most extreme kind
of results.


Yeah people are suseptable to misdirection.
One could say that sameness in components could also be imagined if the
listener believes ahead of time that no difference exists.


One could imagine that, but perceptual psychology says the stronger
tendancy is to experience *difference*.


I would like to see a citation of any study in perceptual psychology that
suggests this is true. I'll bet if it has been studied the studies would show
the pre-existing bias would prove far more powerful than any universal
tendency
to percieve a difference.


I have studied this; ("Can You Trust Your Ears" AES May 1991 Conference "The
Sound of Audio") and it is true that subjects ranging from housewives, audio
enthusiasts, schoolteachers and graduate level economists will express a
preference for one of two identical sound presentations without reservation
and with "sound quality" reasons.

People, by and large, go through life not noticing
differences that do exist every bit as much as they percieve differences that
don't exist. But like coincidences vs. noncoincidences the failure to note
small but real differences in our sensery perception goes largely unnoticed.


I've studed this too; and have not found that small differences that cannot be
correlated to known (and measureable) acoustical differences have ever been
verified.

That means every ABX
DBT that has been done with people who believe no difference exists
between the components in question is tainted with expectation bias unless

a control was
used in the test for that bias such as the random insertion of a known

barly
audible distortion.



Again, 'expectation bias' isn't necessarily conscious expectation...


I don't believe that. Claims of the effects of the "subconscious" mind on the
conscious mind are highly debated. If you can cite any scientific claims that
"subconscious" biases are at work in the effects of expectation bias I'd like
to read about it. I am betting that none of the studdies on the effects of
expectation bias make any claims that the expectation bias is subconscious.


That isn't necessary. Experiments, easily confirmed by you, where subjects
"hear" differences when nothing is changed can only be applied to internal
(subconscious or not) bias mechanisms.

it's not a matter of going into the test, saying to yourself, I *will*
hear a difference.



I think it very much is. That is why I think deliberate misdirection is an
obvious flaw in testing for normal expectation bias. The deck is stacked.


Actually the human condition IS to expect a difference. One doesn't have to
consciously "expect" one; it's the human condition.

There's a wonderful Candid Camera episode where the crew poured several glasses
of wine out of the same bottle and placed the glasses on a table with bottles
of other wines behind them; and then had subjects taste each glass and
evaluate the taste of the wine.

They had some wonderful clips of subjects erxplaning the "substantial"
differences between the wines. When the moderator said to one subject "What if
I told you that all the wines were poured from the same bottle?" the subject
said "We'll why did taste so much different?"


And, too, when are ABX tests performed to test a claim of 'no difference'?



Every time Tom does such a test.


Please. When Tom does an experiment it is ONLY to confirm difference. I've
traveled half-way across the country at my own expense more than once to allow
a proponent to prove his claims. I've conducted experiments of 16-weeks length,
I've given a subject a 5-week training period with the experimental gear set-up
in his listening room. I've personally acquired equipment to test a
"Series-Tweak" experiment when the claimaint opted out at the last minute, I've
given any and every argument FULL opportunity to PROVE those claims of
"obvious" and "easily heard" differences.

So far ..... NO victors in the amp'wire'bits claims. Is Me Wheel ready?

All the ones I've sen reported involved people who claimed they could
hear a difference between A and B; if not, there would be no point in
continuing the test.


You are not a reference for recording all such tests.


Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully

identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis.


I'd require taste and smell, most likely. ANyone who's had a cold knows
that a stuffed nose reduces taste sensitivity. And that's been confirmed
medically, and the anatomical basis is known.


I figured that was understood. I was refering to literal blindfolding. Try it
with amny differnt samples and see how well you do.



Take the testee out of the
envirement and all bets are off on sensitivity.


No, Scott. All bets aren't off. We know that certain
changes to the environment reduce sensitivity. Others could
be expected to have little or no effect. This stuff has
been studied.


I am sure it has been studied. I am not so sure it has been accurately
reported
on RAHE.


And how so?

The interaction of senses is
complex and critical in sensitivty of the senses.


In some cases, for some senses, yes.

But *that's beside the point anyway*. We're not talking about blocking
any of the senses. It's not analogous to stuffing someone's nose and
asking them to identify a flavor. We aren't talking about blindfolding the
testee.
or dong the test in the dark. We aren't damping down the sense of sight.
We are only talking about keeping the identity unknown at the time of

actual

listening. You can *SEE* both devices
under test, during the test, if you like. You just can't *know* which
one is playing. How could that possibly be construed as changing the
interaction of the senses?


I was talking about deliberate misdirection.


And? If it's only suggestion how would that interfere with "true perception?"
You're telling us that a mere suggestion from a proctor is enough to make you
(an experienced listener) "forget" all you know about sound, even for a moment?

Really? I'd guess that your ..... ears must be pretty delicate.

  #68   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

(S888Wheel) wrote:



You are talking about misdirection. Yeah people are suseptable to
misdirection.



What if the non-change was self-imposed and accidental, as in where one
discovers after the decision that the switch was in a different position

than
supposed?


Whether misdirection is accidental or done on purpose it is still
misdirection.
I would suspect your tests using misdirection are quite incomplete.


I wasn't describing a "test" of misdirection; but instead describing a
situation where a friend asked me to demonstrate the "capacitor" test. I gladly
did so and he reported the expected results. But to my amazement I discovered
that the "difference" he reported were the same as they were in previous tests

So I then asked my son to proctor the same test for me but under single blind
conditions. Surprise .... I couldn't hear the "obvious" differences that had
been confirmed by audiophiles under open-testing.

That was the experiment that set me to controlled listening tests. I'd been
indoctrinated by the "talk" about capacitor sound. I'd "experienced" the
expected effects in open listening. I'd successfully demonstrated those effects
to friends (and family) all under "open" conditions.

So now when I was forced to the wall I had to either conveniently "ignore"
contrary evidence OR put it to the real test.

From that time onward I out EVERY audibility issue to the blind test. IF you
can't "hear" it when the levels are matched and you figurativey have your eyes
closed ....then it ain't sound or sound quality.

I suspect
if you had done the test twice,once with the specific directions stating that
there may or may not be an audible difference when the switch is made you
would
have eliminated the effect of deliberate misdirection. If the results of such
a
control test were the same as your test which used deliberate misdirection
you
could then claim that the misdirection was not a factor.Certainly if you tell
the testees that there will be a difference they are more likely to to for
and
find one that doesn't exist.


You don't even have to tell them or suggest anything. The mere setting of a
comparison signals "difference."

Like I said, I bet you could easily get the same
mistakes from people who expect no difference will be present when one
actually
is present.


And exactly "who" would that person be? Any comparison implies difference. Who
would (other than a crazy like me) ask you to compare two identical things?

One could say that sameness in components could also be imagined if the
listener believes ahead of time that no difference exists. That means every
ABX
DBT that has been done with people who believe no difference exists between
the
components in question is tainted with expectation bias unless a control

was
used in the test for that bias such as the random insertion of a known

barly
audible distortion.



The Candid Camera wine test shows that the nominal expectation bias of

humans
is a false positive no matter what the sense.


I don't know anything about this test. But your test involved deliberate
misdirection.


Which test do you reference? "Can You Trust Your Ears? AES Conference 1991"?
Have you read it? What 'misdirection' was involved other than the sound "may
have been processed" which in some cases it was to change level.

I don't think it proves much. We know that people can be fooled
by magicians.


OK and by amp/cable sound advocates as well.

Even so, how do you insert a
"barely", or even "obvious", audible effect (such as wire sound) that has
never been shown to exist?


You don't. You insert one that has been shown to exist. Maybe you didn't
understand what I was proposing.


Maybe not. But those experiments have been conducted or maybe you didn't notic.

No, you do it by simply making one piece of information
*unavailable* to the listener at the time of audition -- namely, the
identity of the device or treatment currently playing. The only
cues to that, should be what is *heard*. Otherwise there's
a signficant chance the identification was made based on factors *other*
than the audible.

Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis. Take the testee out of the
envirement and all bets are off on sensitivity. The interaction of senses

is
complex and critical in sensitivty of the senses



So blind people don't have a sense of taste when they aren't in their
reference
kitchen?


Of course they do if they have enough experience tasting things as a blind
person. I guess you have never tried to identify things by taste while
blindfolded. Try it with many different samples and see how well you fare.


OK and exactly how does something like that support yoiur case? If I can't tell
an orange from a tangerine with my eyes closed that only tells me that my sense
of taste isn't that sensitive.

Double blind testing tells us exactly the same thing; my sense of sound is
pretty gross and a cardboard box with the picture of a Krell on it will
perceptually turn my Parasound sonically into a Krell. Tell me something I
already didn't know.

  #69   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

You are talking about misdirection. Yeah people are suseptable to
misdirection.



What if the non-change was self-imposed and accidental, as in where one
discovers after the decision that the switch was in a different position

than
supposed?


Whether misdirection is accidental or done on purpose it is still
misdirection.
I would suspect your tests using misdirection are quite incomplete.


I wasn't describing a "test" of misdirection; but instead describing a
situation where a friend asked me to demonstrate the "capacitor" test. I
gladly
did so and he reported the expected results. But to my amazement I discovered
that the "difference" he reported were the same as they were in previous
tests


I didn't say yours was a test *of* misdirection I said it was a test that
*used* misdirection. My claim is quite accurate.


So I then asked my son to proctor the same test for me but under single blind
conditions. Surprise .... I couldn't hear the "obvious" differences that had
been confirmed by audiophiles under open-testing.


So the real question is do you still think you hear differences when you
compare capacitors sighted?


That was the experiment that set me to controlled listening tests. I'd been
indoctrinated by the "talk" about capacitor sound. I'd "experienced" the
expected effects in open listening. I'd successfully demonstrated those
effects
to friends (and family) all under "open" conditions.


All using misdirection. you cannot rightfully claim that such experiments prove
that all people under all circumstances will to the same degree percieve
differences that are not there. All of your experiments involved obvious
conscious expectation bias. I am not saying expectation bias doesn't affect
perception. I am saying that your personal experiments do not prove that people
will always be inclined to percieve nonexistant differences regardless of their
expectation biases. Steven suggested that everyone has a subconscious
expectation bias that in any comparison there will be a difference. I don't buy
that and I don't see anyone proving it.


So now when I was forced to the wall I had to either conveniently "ignore"
contrary evidence OR put it to the real test.

From that time onward I out EVERY audibility issue to the blind test. IF you
can't "hear" it when the levels are matched and you figurativey have your
eyes
closed ....then it ain't sound or sound quality.


But since then you have done nothing to avoid the effects of expectation biases
that things sound the same. That is a problem in your tests IMO.


I suspect
if you had done the test twice,once with the specific directions stating

that
there may or may not be an audible difference when the switch is made you
would
have eliminated the effect of deliberate misdirection. If the results of

such
a
control test were the same as your test which used deliberate misdirection
you
could then claim that the misdirection was not a factor.Certainly if you

tell
the testees that there will be a difference they are more likely to to for
and
find one that doesn't exist.


You don't even have to tell them or suggest anything. The mere setting of a
comparison signals "difference."


I don't think your tests prove that.


Like I said, I bet you could easily get the same
mistakes from people who expect no difference will be present when one
actually
is present.


And exactly "who" would that person be?


What "person" did I refer too?

Any comparison implies difference. Who
would (other than a crazy like me) ask you to compare two identical things?


I don't think you understood my point. In the scenerio I proposed the things
being compared would be different.


Which test do you reference? "Can You Trust Your Ears? AES Conference 1991"?
Have you read it? What 'misdirection' was involved other than the sound "may
have been processed" which in some cases it was to change level.


I am refering to your desciption of your tests inwhich you told the testees
that you were making a switch but infact you made no switch. I would think the
misdirection would be pretty obvious.


I don't think it proves much. We know that people can be fooled
by magicians.


OK and by amp/cable sound advocates as well.


And by amp/cable no sound advocates as you have proven.


Even so, how do you insert a
"barely", or even "obvious", audible effect (such as wire sound) that has
never been shown to exist?


You don't. You insert one that has been shown to exist. Maybe you didn't
understand what I was proposing.


Maybe not. But those experiments have been conducted or maybe you didn't
notic.


Not in the ABX DBTs articles you have cited. If you have done them I have never
seen you talk about them.


No, you do it by simply making one piece of information
*unavailable* to the listener at the time of audition -- namely, the
identity of the device or treatment currently playing. The only
cues to that, should be what is *heard*. Otherwise there's
a signficant chance the identification was made based on factors *other*
than the audible.

Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully

identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis. Take the testee out of the
envirement and all bets are off on sensitivity. The interaction of senses
is
complex and critical in sensitivty of the senses



So blind people don't have a sense of taste when they aren't in their
reference
kitchen?



Of course they do if they have enough experience tasting things as a blind
person. I guess you have never tried to identify things by taste while
blindfolded. Try it with many different samples and see how well you fare.



OK and exactly how does something like that support yoiur case? If I can't
tell
an orange from a tangerine with my eyes closed that only tells me that my
sense
of taste isn't that sensitive.


Nope, that isn't what it tells you at all. It seems you are ignoring the
complex interaction of the senses. If you see the orange or tangerine your
brain has already done the major work of figuring out what you will be tasting.
that frees your brain up to do the detail work. If you are literally
blindfolded your brain is busy figuring out whether you should be eating this
thing at all. Your brain is busy dealing with defense mechanisms. The fact is
if you have to start from scratch there is more to figure out and less chance
of percieving the finer nuances. If you don't like that example i could easily
give you a visual example. compare prints of a complex photo one with a slight
change in the dynamic range. See if anyone can tell the difference without
being told what to look for. Then tell the testees to compare the color
definition on the shadow areas. What was at first undetectable will become
pretty obvious.


Double blind testing tells us exactly the same thing; my sense of sound is
pretty gross and a cardboard box with the picture of a Krell on it will
perceptually turn my Parasound sonically into a Krell. Tell me something I
already didn't know.


I am trying to.

  #70   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:GdxTb.163713$sv6.894310@attbi_s52...
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes:

I'm only claiming that memories of subtle audible differences fade

more
quickly
than memories of large, gross differences, whatever they may be. You
have any
evidence to the contrary?

OK, if subtle audible differences fade quickly, doesn't that validate
the findings of DBT'ers that quick switching is the best way to
determine differences?


No, because those subtle differences often take time to be recognized

and
enter consciousness.



er...how on earth does thsi work, Harry? You listen to A for as long as

you
like. You listen to B for a long as you like. You switch between them
as often as you like, until the subtle differences are recognized and
enter your consciousness.

'Quick switching' merely means that when you *do* want
to switch between A and B (or X and A/B), the actual switching occurs
'instantanously', rather than with a long lag of no sound. You can

*insert*
such a lag into the process if you like, if that's what you think it
takes for the differences to be recognized and enter consciousness.
Mkuller seems to agree that inserting such a lag would promote the loss of
accurate memory of subtle audible difference.


Why do 'objectivists' have to keep explaining this stuff to you guys over
and over and over?


You don't. It's a function of not really understanding or acknowledging on
*your* part what we are saying.



OK, I'm game.


For open ended evaluation, you don't know initially what you are looking
for. It make days for things to gel that "a" sounds somewhat thisway, and
"b" sounds somewhat more thatway. From extended, evaluative listening and
non-quick switching. Then a tentative conclusion is drawn. Now you know
what you are listening "for". It may be something subtle and perceptual,
such as "imaging". Once you have it firmly grasped in mind what the
signature is of "a" and how it might vary from "b", quick switching can help
precisely because it "interupts" the perception you have grasped and altered
it slightly (or not) over the flow of music.


Fine, you are agreeing that when it comes time to *test* your 'tentative
conclusion', then quick switching is a good way to go. So why did you say
'no' above?

We are talking about open-ended component evaluation. If I simply give you
two components, say "different" or "same", or "is it a" or "is it b" and
force a choice quick switching works against you because you haven't yet
really been able to determine what it is you are listening for in audio
terms. "Same" or "different" are not audio terms. They are "sound
artifact" terms on simple one or two dimensions.


Whether the 'evaluative' part -- the part the *perception*
of A/B difference is established -- must be 'open ended' is moot.
*Whatever works*, Harry. The idea is to get to the point where you believe
A and B sound different. Period .
*Then* use the best methods to test the belief that.

The vast majority of controlled tests seem to have been performed on people
who *belelive they hear a difference between A and B* -- regardless of *when and how*.
They may have perceived it during the A/B part of the ABX test itself;
or they may have perceived it prior to the test, using something like
'open ended evaluation'.

(the preceding has all been explained before)

Under quick switching under these circumstances, the brain seems to "panic"
in that it can't sort audio patterns quickly and has no frame of reference;
this by itself creates anxiety, which in turn creates even more confusion
and panic. I believe this is why audiophiles cite stress and fatigue in
trying to do this kind of testing when dealing with very subtle, perceptual
factors and why the test favors a "null conclusion" unless we are dealing
with straightforward factors that the sensate function can handle without
much need for the intuitive or emotional functions (volume, frequency
response).



OSAF. The 'stress' might just as well arise from confrontation with reality
as their beliefs crash up against it.

(the preceding has all eben explained before)

Do I know this for sure? No. But it is reasonable and verifiable. That is
why I proposed a control test that is double-blind, relaxed, evaluative, and
leisurely. Along with testing of the same respondents using sighted,
evaluative listening and at another time relatively short, terse,
comparative ("same","different") double- blind testing as is traditionally
recommended here.



Havent' soem of Tom's tests been performed over periods of weeks?
Is that not 'leisurely' enough? Did nto Steve Zipser *already claim
to have heard differences* in the components used?

Harry, *everything* you've fretted about here, is utterly moot,
once a difference has already been *perceived*. At that point,
it's merely a matter of testing that perception.

(the preceding has all been explained before)

If the control test gave results similar to traditional dbt/abx, it would
verify that that traditional dbt/abx testing was a valid "shortcut" to
evaluative testing. If the control test gave results similar to sighted
open-ended evaluative testing, then it would suggest that evaluative testing
even though sighted was a more encompassing and valid approach for component
evaluation.


So if you really want to stop the "jaw flapping" and try to resolve the
differences of the two camps, first you have to acknowledge the possibility
that we might have a point, and that it is worth trying to resolve somehow.


Just as we acknowledge that traditional dbt/abx testing works fine for
simple volume and frequency response differences, and artifact detection,
which allow simple one or two dimensional evaluations.


*NOTHING* you have written indicates that DBT/ABX is inadequate for testing
claims of audible difference...no matter how they've been arrived at. Once the
claim is *testifed to* -- one the person says, *I hear a difference* --
what's required a good test. Which you agree is: double blind comparison
protocol.

So please STOP repeating the same stuff over and over, OK?

(the preceding has been explained and requested before)



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director



  #71   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default The End of the DBT Debate?

"Steven Sullivan" wrote:
Why do 'objectivists' have to keep explaining this stuff to you guys over
and over and over?


"Harry Lavo" wrote:
You don't. It's a function of not really understanding or acknowledging on
*your* part what we are saying.

For open ended evaluation, you don't know initially what you are looking
for. It make days for things to gel that "a" sounds somewhat thisway, and
"b" sounds somewhat more thatway. From extended, evaluative listening and
non-quick switching. Then a tentative conclusion is drawn. Now you know
what you are listening "for". It may be something subtle and perceptual,
such as "imaging". Once you have it firmly grasped in mind what the
signature is of "a" and how it might vary from "b", quick switching can help
precisely because it "interupts" the perception you have grasped and altered
it slightly (or not) over the flow of music.

We are talking about open-ended component evaluation. If I simply give you
two components, say "different" or "same", or "is it a" or "is it b" and
force a choice quick switching works against you because you haven't yet
really been able to determine what it is you are listening for in audio
terms. "Same" or "different" are not audio terms. They are "sound
artifact" terms on simple one or two dimensions.

Under quick switching under these circumstances, the brain seems to "panic"
in that it can't sort audio patterns quickly and has no frame of reference;
this by itself creates anxiety, which in turn creates even more confusion
and panic. I believe this is why audiophiles cite stress and fatigue in
trying to do this kind of testing when dealing with very subtle, perceptual
factors and why the test favors a "null conclusion" unless we are dealing
with straightforward factors that the sensate function can handle without
much need for the intuitive or emotional functions (volume, frequency
response).

Do I know this for sure? No. But it is reasonable and verifiable. That is
why I proposed a control test that is double-blind, relaxed, evaluative, and
leisurely. Along with testing of the same respondents using sighted,
evaluative listening and at another time relatively short, terse,
comparative ("same","different") double- blind testing as is traditionally
recommended here.

If the control test gave results similar to traditional dbt/abx, it would
verify that that traditional dbt/abx testing was a valid "shortcut" to
evaluative testing. If the control test gave results similar to sighted
open-ended evaluative testing, then it would suggest that evaluative testing
even though sighted was a more encompassing and valid approach for component
evaluation.

So if you really want to stop the "jaw flapping" and try to resolve the
differences of the two camps, first you have to acknowledge the possibility
that we might have a point, and that it is worth trying to resolve somehow.

Just as we acknowledge that traditional dbt/abx testing works fine for
simple volume and frequency response differences, and artifact detection,
which allow simple one or two dimensional evaluations.


I believe Harry's post above is the most concise and insightful description of
the differences between *blind* and *sighted* audio component comparisons using
music and is pretty much the conclusion of the debate unless there is new
information to be provided. One dimensional (loudness or gross frequency
response differences) versus multi-dimensional (what most audiophiles and
equipment reviewers describe). Take your pick.

In the past few weeks we have seen "'watchking99's" numerous posts on the
difficulties involved with conducting a valid blind test. We have seen
"ernstr's" questions about the thresholds of hearing and perception. Even
Marcus and "josko" have suggested mechanisms in the brain where performing
different functions can interfere with perception.

The DBT debate is becoming very repetitve. The subjectivists have raised a
number of important issues and concerns. The objectivists seem to be in denial
and are unwilling to consider their DBT method may be flawed in its application
for audio. Until they admit there may be some problems with their method and
provide some *verifying evidence* that their method works in an open-ended
multi-dimensional audio component evaluation using music, everything else is
just positioning, debating and speculation.

Sighted listening is prone to expectation bias and may result in *false
positives*. We agree on that. DBTs may provide controls for expectation bias
but they seem to always result in *false negatives* when the differences are
small and multi-dimensional. Which is preferable?

I for one will continue to use my own sighted methods for audio component
evaluation, suffer a few false positives (if indeed that is the case) until
there is *verification* that a bias control method actually works and does not
obscure or mask information.
Regards,
Mike

  #72   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

S888Wheel wrote:
You are talking about misdirection.

Yes, as *one kind* of prior knowledge...the most extreme kind.


And being the most extreme kind it is likely to wrought the most extreme

kind
of results.



Even if less extreme kinds yield 'less extreme' results ...which is not
conceded...do you agree that prior knowledge still biases sighted
comparison to some degree?


Yes, if the knowledge has some meaning to the testee.


No, and this what a deliberate misdirection protocol illustrates
easily, is that the testee need not know anything about the two things being
compared. All they have to know (or be told) is that two nominally
different things are being compared.

In the deliberate misdirection case, there is in fact only one thing
being 'compared', although the testee 'knows' that two things are
being compared.

noticing
differences that do exist every bit as much as they percieve differences

that
don't exist.



I wold like to see a citation of any study in perceptual psychology that
suggests this is true.


Hmm I asked for citations to support your claim and none were given. Unlike
your assertion I do not claim mine is based on any scientific study. Do you
really disagree with the assertion that people go through life not noticing
subtle differences in their day to day life and this lack of notice goes
unnoted for the same reason noncoincidences go unnoted?


This situation is not analogous to what's happening during a component
comparison. People generally fail to notice difference -- big and subtle --
when they aren't *paying attention*.

But like coincidences vs. noncoincidences the failure to note
small but real differences in our sensery perception goes largely

unnoticed.




Not when a person is comparing two things. There, the tendancy is to
report difference...perhaps it's of a piece with the 'coincidence' thing,
where peopel tend to impart *meaning* to things merely based
on temporal proximity or some other possibly spurious 'connection'.
IIRC such errors of judgement are covered in the book
Inevitable Illusions : How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds
by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a professor of cognitive science at UAZ.


I don't think your assertion is so universal. Many people involved in QC in
many different areas of production make unbias controled evaluations and do a
very good job of it.


A statement so general as to be meaningless in the context of this argument.
*What* areas of production, *what* products, *what* methods are used,
*how* are they verified, *how* analogous is the whole shebang to the task
of verifying audible perception?

Scott, controlled comparison for audible difference does not usually
involve *deliberate misdirection*, so please abandon this straw man
argument immediately.


There is no straw man argument since I was specifically refering to Tom's tests
which did involve misdirection.


AFAICT, Tom has done *some* tests of this type, and many that *aren't*.

I merely used that example as a pretty foolproof way
to highlight the inherent tendency towards *hearing* difference when some
other sort of difference exists (either real or imagined).


If you don't want me to address a specific example then maybe it shouldn't be
used.


I don't care if you address the example; I do care if you misconstrue its meaning.

And, too, when are ABX tests performed to test a claim of 'no difference'?


Every time Tom does such a test.


When has Tom tested a claim of *no difference*, rather than a claim of
*difference*?


This smells of a semantic argument. If you are testing one you are testing the
other. Tom's position of no difference is well known.


Then stop quibbling and stop making false claims about Tom's ABX tests.
How can the Zipser trial,, for example,
be construed as a 'deliberate misdirection' OR a
test for 'no difference'? Tom has done plenty of testing of people who
decide *first* that they hear a difference (which is *typical* in ABX).

All the ones I've sen reported involved people who claimed they could
hear a difference between A and B; if not, there would be no point in
continuing the test.


You are not a reference for recording all such tests.


You aren't a reference for scientifically-founded ideas. It doesn't stop
you from proclaiming your lack of belief in them as if it were some sort of
dispositive argument.


Complete nonsense. I have NEVER claimed any lack of belief in scientifically
founded ideas. I think many such ideas have been grossly misrepresented on RAO
though. I have spoken out about those misrepresentations.


Well, I avoid RAO *religiously*.

Do you think you know what orange juice or
cola or strawberry jello taste like? I bet you cannot successfully
identify
such items by taste alone on a reliable basis.

I'd require taste and smell, most likely. ANyone who's had a cold knows
that a stuffed nose reduces taste sensitivity. And that's been confirmed
medically, and the anatomical basis is known.


I figured that was understood. I was refering to literal blindfolding. Try

it
with amny differnt samples and see how well you do.


We aren't talking about literal blindfolding of ABX /DBT testees, ever.
We aren't talking about blocking any of the senses.


I know. I was using that as an extreme example of how such changes can
profoundly affect sensitivity. I am not claiming that ABX DBTs do affect
sensitivity but that it may do so when listening to music. It does inherently
change the way people listen.


it does not inherentl;y change the way people *comparatively listen*, except in
one way: it removes the confounding effect of *knowing the identity of the
source*.

It does not surprise me that people can hear
differences more easily with pink noise than with music in quick switching time
synced ABX DBTs.


It would not surprise me if they could hear *some* differences more quickly that way,
nor would it surprise me if *sighted* results of the same comparisons were in accord
with ABX results.

When one listens to music and uses quick switching one is
never comparing the same source.
At least with pink noise the sourse doesn't
change. I think it would be interesting to do ABX DBTs with source samples of
music that are replayed in their entirety with each switch rather than a real
time switch of an on going musical source that is ever changing in sound.


You are confusing two parameters. Quick-switchign refers only to the lag between
listening to A and switching to B. What you are referring to is *time-alignment*
or *synching*, which means that 'B' picks up exactly where 'A' left off.

There is no *requirement* that A and B be time-aligned. It does, however, ,make
some kinds of differences readily apparent, i.e., pitch or EQ differences.

It
does seem to me that pink noise and a few other test signals that do not change
or can be replayed in their entirety would make for one less variable and would
make for a far more sensitive test.


Pink noise is well known to be a very sensitive signal for some kinds of diffence.

on RAHE.



See above re : dispositive arguments. OF cousre, you could always do what
has been suggested many times to you: take the time to go do the research
in your local university library to your own satisfaction, and report back
to us.

Piatelli-Palmarini's book, btw, is avaialble cheaply from amazon.com


I have made such purchases in the past only to find out that indeed the
information had been misrepresented on RAHE. I have no interest in buying books
only to find out I am right. If I am wrong it is easy enough to quote a passage
from any such book that shows it to be so.


You mean, it's easier for you to let others do the work? I know that already.

or dong the test in the dark. We aren't damping down the sense of sight.
We are only talking about keeping the identity unknown at the time of

actual

listening. You can *SEE* both devices
under test, during the test, if you like. You just can't *know* which
one is playing. How could that possibly be construed as changing the
interaction of the senses?


I was talking about deliberate misdirection.


Deliberate misdirection doesn't necessarily involve hindering any senses.


It sure does indirectly.


It needn't do so IN ANY. As the example below illustrates.


If two cables or amps or CD players -- for giggles, let's make one a
hgih-end brand and the other a mass-market brand -- are hooked up to a
switchbox, with the switch and the components *always in view*, and the
proctor says the 'up' position opf the switch is DUT A and the 'down'
position is DUT B, when in fact both positions are DUT A, it's an
excellent bet that the golden ear testee will hear big differences between
the switch positions. Where have any of the senses been thwarted in this
deliberate misdirection protocol?


This has nothing to do with the specific tests that Tom did which he claims as
proof that people will so regularly imagine differences.


It illulstrates that ther eneed be no hindering of senses at all in a
biuas-controlled experiment.

That is the specific
misdirection that I am saying is stacking the deck and possibly giving skewed
results. I am saying that the same misdirection in reverse would probably
wrought similar mistaken results with testees failing to detect real
differences. That's all.


Which if true would only illustrate further that bias can, indeed, obfuscate
perception of reality...and so *must be accounted for*.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

  #74   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yet another DBT post

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:A2FTb.169847$nt4.758669@attbi_s51...
"Harry Lavo"
wrote:


"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:GdxTb.163713$sv6.894310@attbi_s52...
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes:

I'm only claiming that memories of subtle audible differences fade

more
quickly
than memories of large, gross differences, whatever they may be. You
have any
evidence to the contrary?

OK, if subtle audible differences fade quickly, doesn't that validate
the findings of DBT'ers that quick switching is the best way to
determine differences?


No, because those subtle differences often take time to be recognized and
enter consciousness.


Ok; but what process causes experienced audiophiles to 'forget' learned

and
conscious sonic attributes when nothing but a cloth is placed over

speaker/amp
terminals AND an only recently encountered device is

inserted/not-inserted. Why
would the subject now be unable to tell the cry of his "baby" from that of

a
relative stranger?

And IF that condition suddenly causes the subject to "forget" even

familiar
sound how can we be sure that Kuller isn't right and sonic memory

disappears in
"microseconds?"

That's where your argument eventually leads. I believe that audible memory

is
quite robust; it becomes fleeting ONLY if the effect were imagined in the

first
place. Otherwise we would have to re-learn the sound of instruments for

every
concert.


The simple answer is your understanding/answer to the issue is far too
simplistic. I've explained the process and why a control test is needed in
two other posts. Once you read them, I hope you'll better undertstand where
we (I at least) am coming from and why "simply throwing a blanket over the
terminals" is not an answer.


Why not? What set of conditions would it take for YOU, personally, to validate
amp/cable sound to the world? You (or others on your side) have said that I've
not "proven" that ABX tests don't "mask" true audible differences. OK; but how
can you show us that differences are actually audible when you don't already
have prior knowledge of what you're listening to?

Tell me how you would set up a listening test?
  #75   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default The End of the DBT Debate?

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


For open ended evaluation, you don't know initially what you are looking
for. It make days for things to gel that "a" sounds somewhat thisway,

and
"b" sounds somewhat more thatway. From extended, evaluative listening

and
non-quick switching. Then a tentative conclusion is drawn. Now you know
what you are listening "for". It may be something subtle and perceptual,
such as "imaging". Once you have it firmly grasped in mind what the
signature is of "a" and how it might vary from "b", quick switching can

help
precisely because it "interupts" the perception you have grasped and

altered
it slightly (or not) over the flow of music.



Would you suppose that after having spent the requisite
days/weeks/months of extended, evaluative listening and non-quick
switching, after having drawn tentative conclusions, & after having
firmly grasped in mind what the signature is of "a" and how it might
vary from "b" ...that *THEN* you could pass a conventional ABX double
blind test between "a" & "b" ?


No need, I'd already have the answer without ever having to make a conscious
choice...it would have grown organically out of the listening.

However, if I did want to do a blind confirmation, I would do it in an
evaluative fashion using the same music I had been listening to, and
identifying/rating the components on a scale designed to get at the factors
I had grown to identify as distinguishing. I would do a one-two hour 'warm
up" sighted before going blind for each trial. And I would do fifteen or
twenty of those trials over a pretty long period of time. And then apply
statistical analysis. It would never be a conventional a-b or a-b-x
comparative test.


However, if i did want to do a comparative blind test, I would want it to be
an a-b, not an abx. And I would want it to follow hard on the heels of
several hours of warm-up listening, where I had firmly reestablished those
signatures in mind before "going blind". And I would want to use the same
music I had just been listening to and control the switching. And I would
want to do it alone with no chance of cheating built into the test.


  #76   Report Post  
watch king
 
Posts: n/a
Default The end of the DBT debate?

I have to totally disagree with MKuller and since I have had a number
of direct emails to me that seem to totally misunderstand (or
actually distort and twist) many of the things I've said, I'd like to
clarify what I have been saying. There is a factor which should be
considered when discussing testing. Double blind testing doesn't
require a number of comparative switches back and forth, back and
forth or forth and back, to make the choice as to which test item is
better. The reason the shorter test comparison times should be used
is that it magnifies ANY difference of quality, subtle or otherwise,
that exist between one test item and another. By charting the
statistical significance of variations in listener results,
relatively short comparison periods are also the most sensitive test
method that can be used to determine when there was NO audible
difference between one test item and another.

When designing blind tests, the least useful method of blind testing
was the "unlimited time", one day to the next method. In this method
the listener was only presented with the volume control and nothing
else. They could listen for as long as they chose one day and then
using the same program material in the same sequence, they would
listen to the other item being tested (or perhaps the same item over
again). What happened was when the length of the test was increased,
the ability to hear subtle differences between items was reduced. So
the ability of the listeners to hear subtle differences when
listeners compared two items for a minute or two 50 times in a row
was much greater than if the listeners were able to listen for 5
minutes or 50 minutes or all day and then had exactly the same amount
of time to listen to the next item in the test for an equivalent
amount of time at equivalent loudness levels.

With a thoughtful choice of high quality program material and
accurate level balancing it is far easier for any ear, trained or
otherwise to pick out even the most subtle difference between one
audio product and another with these relatively shorter listening
comparison times (5-15 seconds for each product). With challenging
material the switch time between products can be as short as 5
seconds, 5 seconds, 5 seconds etc. and audiences trained or
untrained, marveled at their ability to hear even the tiniest of
differences between products. I never cared one way or the other
which style of testing was used to show that one items sounded better
than another. I was willing to run the tests whichever way showed the
ability to highlight the subtle differences better because this would
allow for the most differences to be heard. It just turned out that
during many tests used to design the final tests to be used under
certifiable conditions, more differences and more subtle differences
were always more audible using totally blind tests and relatively
short switches with challenging audio material.

Testing professionals who were able to take as long as they wanted to
determine whether one product sounded better than another, the
results were always similar but the test listeners were able to be
more certain of quality differences and they were able to make their
determinations more quickly using comparisons in the 5-15 second
range, than any other time interval. All the testing showed that
professionally trained listeners or untrained listeners had less
certainty in their decisions the longer the comparison period was
extended. In fact many of the most biased listeners became frustrated
and tried to force themselves to point out differences even when
those differences weren't there because the products tested one day
were the same as the day before. So it all comes down to the
blindness factor. This is the part that reduces the ego and listening
bias the most. No matter how long listeners want to have to make
comparisons (even up to a week if they so choose) the reality is that
they will just be less likely to make clear choices the longer the
test comparison periods run.

This difficulty in making choices unless they can color their
judgement by knowing which device is playing, is what forces biased
listeners to require that they know what item is playing in order to
choose the product their ego investment requires. It was incredibly
embarrassing and irritating that golden ear'd audiophiles would often
choose the product they had publicly said was poorer or could make no
distinction at all when they couldn't know what items were being
tested. The only allowance the listening testers could use during
these long term tests was the volume control. And the loudness levels
through the test program were recorded, so that for the rest of the
tests the volume levels were kept the same during the same sections
of the material.

Not only are double, triple or more blind tests the best way to
determine differences between the quality of one audio product and
another, it seems this kind of testing is the only way to determine
the truly subtle differences. The only thing helpful about knowing
which item is playing is that it helps listeners bias the results to
back up what their emotional ego investment says the choice should
be. This is why credible listening comparisons of wire are so
maddening for those who claim there are differences in the sound of
two wires of equal gauge (and not using frequency response modifying
devices). Run any such test for 6 days. Let the listeners listen for
as long or as short of comparison times as they choose. Make sure to
run product A against itself some of the time and the same for B.
This means that perhaps the sequence should sometimes have A compared
to A and B compared to B. There have been many listening tests run
using comparison periods from 10-10-10-10-10-10 seconds to 1 day-1
day-1 day-1 day with one item and then one day with another item
(maybe) and the results of the listeners scoring was always random.
In other words if the listeners aren't shown how to be biased in
favor of one product vs another they usually don't hear a difference
with wire. It is only when they are forced to make sighted decisions
to back up their own pronouncements, does it happen that they choose
the product they claimed was better.

It is peculiar that anyone can find anything in anything I've written
in this forum that supports the value of any kind of listening tests
except blind listening tests. True the tests have to be designed
well. A lot of test music and natural sound has to be reviewed to
find passages that will most easily identify the differences between
products. The listening rooms have to be made as neutral as possible.
There are really many factors which go into a well designed and well
run listening test. But the only way to get useful listening test
results is if the products tested are tested totally blind. There is
no reason to force listeners to make choices using relatively small
time increments, but all but the most biased listeners agree after
trying various time increments for testing, the shorter the
comparison time feasible, the better at highlighting clear
differences in products which can be "voted for" by listeners with
the greatest confidence. I hope that now there are no
misunderstandings about what I have said concerning the tens of
thousands of listening tests I've supervised. Sighted tests are
always the worst way to do listening tests and blind tests are the
only ones of any value except to those that have an ego stake in the
results to the point where they will deny the results of tests if
those results don't match their own claims.

Having worked with many many manufacturers over the years and many
consumers up to super-consumers, the best designers of equipment and
the best designers of systems were always those who were totally
dispassionate about whether their product or someone else's was
better sounding. That made these designers market only products that
were cost effective while throwing away most of the other products
they designed that were needed for "product line completion".
Sometimes designers would lose sight of this reality because they
began to believe all the things the sycophants around them were
saying, and that is about the time when their products stopped being
cost effective. Until their egos got in the way or they became too
proud to accept criticism or reality, most great audio product
designers could accept that their product may not sound as good as
someone else's as long as it sold for less money. And these same
designers could also admit that their product might not be worth
marketing at all if it was more expensive but did not demonstrate an
audible improvement over what was in the market already. The problem
occurs when designers who don't care if their products are better,
still need to sell them. Worse yet of course are designers who sell
products they know are inferior but are more expensive. These people
have to sell their products to pay mortgages, or even buy food for
their families, but they likely don't care about consumers at all,
considering exploitable consumers to be only "pockets with" cash in
them which needs to be extracted. I've often heard manufacturers who
say that they are such good salespeople that even if there is no real
audible benefit to their product they can make enough consumers
believe there is a difference to keep their businesses afloat.

If enough well designed and managed blind listening tests were run,
more than half of the audio equipment manufacturers in today's market
would be forced out of business. Either their products wouldn't be
worth what they charge for them, or the quality claims they've made
for long periods of time would be proven false. This is the major
reason why many manufacturers stoke the "flames of confusion" in the
minds of the audio buying public. It is because their quality claims
are nonsense and they just don't want this to be proven to the buying
public. When Disney hired me a year after the ESS listening tests to
run tests that would be a factor (33%) in choosing loudspeakers for
EPCOT and Tokyo, they were certain I really didn't care whose
products came out sounding the best. Disney thoroughly tested every
product many manufacturers made and some of the products from a few
specialty manufacturers. Often the listening and scientific test
results went totally against market myth and manufacturer hype.
Disney used a number of lesser known items and some very popular
items. In every case the result was that EPCOT sounded better to both
engineers and the untrained listening public than any theme park had
ever sounded. Tokyo Disneyland sounded much better than the original
in some cases and exactly the same as Anaheim Disneyland in cases
where the sound couldn't be improved. I never cared who won any of
the listening tests in any of the tests I've managed. Not knowing the
participants identity in these tests (blind testing) was the only
way, the best sounding equipment could be determined when there were
quality differences, and also the only way to accurately determine
when there was no difference in the way a group of products sounded.

What turned out to be quite unfortunate for ESS was that one of their
less expensive speakers sounded much better than almost any other
speaker in the world, including their more expensive speakers. This
turned out to be exactly the kind of information that a
super-consumer like Disney wanted to find. Eventually there were many
products that have been tested this way. That's because this kind of
blind testing highlights only which products sound better. What gets
sifted out of the situation is which company has better salespeople,
or which company has more media allies. It eliminates the idea that
by making something look impressive, a listener can be biased to
believe that the product sounds better. And blind testing is the only
way to find out which products are truly overpriced compared to
others. So for any audiophile who wants the best sound and doesn't
have an unlimited budget to be able to buy everything on the market,
blind listening tests are the only way to buy one system using their
given budget the most effectively. Watchking

Listening isn't a competitive activity, buying equipment is.

We don't get enough sand in our glass.


  #77   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default The End of the DBT Debate?

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


For open ended evaluation, you don't know initially what you are looking
for. It make days for things to gel that "a" sounds somewhat thisway,

and
"b" sounds somewhat more thatway. From extended, evaluative listening

and
non-quick switching. Then a tentative conclusion is drawn. Now you know
what you are listening "for". It may be something subtle and perceptual,
such as "imaging". Once you have it firmly grasped in mind what the
signature is of "a" and how it might vary from "b", quick switching can

help
precisely because it "interupts" the perception you have grasped and

altered
it slightly (or not) over the flow of music.



Would you suppose that after having spent the requisite
days/weeks/months of extended, evaluative listening and non-quick
switching, after having drawn tentative conclusions, & after having
firmly grasped in mind what the signature is of "a" and how it might
vary from "b" ...that *THEN* you could pass a conventional ABX double
blind test between "a" & "b" ?


No need, I'd already have the answer without ever having to make a conscious
choice...it would have grown organically out of the listening.


You have 'an' answer....but you also have an inescapable question mark, from the POV
of established perceptual research practice, unless you verify under blind
conditions. Since you've already agreed that sighted evaluation is inherently
flawed in a way that a blind comparison can resolve,
and you appear to be a dedicated audiophile,
I can't see why the 'answer' from extended evaluative *sighted*
listening would satisfy you.

However, if I did want to do a blind confirmation, I would do it in an
evaluative fashion using the same music I had been listening to, and
identifying/rating the components on a scale designed to get at the factors
I had grown to identify as distinguishing. I would do a one-two hour 'warm
up" sighted before going blind for each trial. And I would do fifteen or
twenty of those trials over a pretty long period of time. And then apply
statistical analysis. It would never be a conventional a-b or a-b-x
comparative test.


But it *would* be a blind A-B or ABX test.

However, if i did want to do a comparative blind test, I would want it to be
an a-b, not an abx. And I would want it to follow hard on the heels of
several hours of warm-up listening, where I had firmly reestablished those
signatures in mind before "going blind". And I would want to use the same
music I had just been listening to and control the switching. And I would
want to do it alone with no chance of cheating built into the test.


Whatever, Harry. The key question is: would you believe the results
if they contradicted your sighted percptions?



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

  #78   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default The End of the DBT Debate?

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


For open ended evaluation, you don't know initially what you are

looking
for. It make days for things to gel that "a" sounds somewhat

thisway,
and
"b" sounds somewhat more thatway. From extended, evaluative

listening
and
non-quick switching. Then a tentative conclusion is drawn. Now you

know
what you are listening "for". It may be something subtle and

perceptual,
such as "imaging". Once you have it firmly grasped in mind what the
signature is of "a" and how it might vary from "b", quick switching

can
help
precisely because it "interupts" the perception you have grasped and

altered
it slightly (or not) over the flow of music.



Would you suppose that after having spent the requisite
days/weeks/months of extended, evaluative listening and non-quick
switching, after having drawn tentative conclusions, & after having
firmly grasped in mind what the signature is of "a" and how it might
vary from "b" ...that *THEN* you could pass a conventional ABX double
blind test between "a" & "b" ?


No need, I'd already have the answer without ever having to make a

conscious
choice...it would have grown organically out of the listening.


You have 'an' answer....but you also have an inescapable question mark,

from the POV
of established perceptual research practice, unless you verify under blind
conditions. Since you've already agreed that sighted evaluation is

inherently
flawed in a way that a blind comparison can resolve,
and you appear to be a dedicated audiophile,
I can't see why the 'answer' from extended evaluative *sighted*
listening would satisfy you.

However, if I did want to do a blind confirmation, I would do it in an
evaluative fashion using the same music I had been listening to, and
identifying/rating the components on a scale designed to get at the

factors
I had grown to identify as distinguishing. I would do a one-two hour

'warm
up" sighted before going blind for each trial. And I would do fifteen or
twenty of those trials over a pretty long period of time. And then

apply
statistical analysis. It would never be a conventional a-b or a-b-x
comparative test.


But it *would* be a blind A-B or ABX test.

However, if i did want to do a comparative blind test, I would want it

to be
an a-b, not an abx. And I would want it to follow hard on the heels of
several hours of warm-up listening, where I had firmly reestablished

those
signatures in mind before "going blind". And I would want to use the

same
music I had just been listening to and control the switching. And I

would
want to do it alone with no chance of cheating built into the test.


Whatever, Harry. The key question is: would you believe the results
if they contradicted your sighted percptions?



The blind evaluative test, absolutely yes.

The blind comparative test, probably not, unless the technique had already
been validated with a control test. Then I would.
  #79   Report Post  
Samuel Barber
 
Posts: n/a
Default The End of the DBT Debate?

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...
However, if I did want to do a blind confirmation, I would do it in an
evaluative fashion using the same music I had been listening to, and
identifying/rating the components on a scale designed to get at the factors
I had grown to identify as distinguishing. I would do a one-two hour 'warm
up" sighted before going blind for each trial. And I would do fifteen or
twenty of those trials over a pretty long period of time. And then apply
statistical analysis. It would never be a conventional a-b or a-b-x
comparative test.

However, if i did want to do a comparative blind test, I would want it to be
an a-b, not an abx. And I would want it to follow hard on the heels of
several hours of warm-up listening, where I had firmly reestablished those
signatures in mind before "going blind". And I would want to use the same
music I had just been listening to and control the switching. And I would
want to do it alone with no chance of cheating built into the test.


I assume this is the requirement for hearing large, obvious
differences (such as between cables and amps). What sort of procedures
would be required to hear more subtle differences?

Sam

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to Post to Usenet thelizman Car Audio 13 March 7th 04 12:15 AM
[Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines RAHE Moderator High End Audio 0 January 9th 04 11:19 PM
[Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines RAHE Moderator High End Audio 0 January 2nd 04 06:14 PM
[Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines RAHE Moderator High End Audio 0 December 19th 03 06:15 PM
[Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines RAHE Moderator High End Audio 0 December 13th 03 09:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"