[Sonnova]

Has anybody read "The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio
Equipment Quality" By Robert Harley? He apparently presented this at the AES
in May.

http://tinyurl.com/6ensud

I'd certainly like to hear comments from Arny Kruger and some of the other
"objectivists" regulars on this forum. To me it reads like "We've got to
protect our Phoney-Baloney jobs, Gentlemen!" and is very self serving. But he
does make a few good points.

His main thrust, which he keeps going back to, seems to center upon the
notion that double-blind and ABX tests are fundamentally flawed because the
listeners are concentrating on hearing differences rather than listening to
the music. He calls this "focal" vs "subsidiary" awareness and uses hitting a
nail with a hammer as an example. When you hit a nail you are watching the
nail, not what your hand which is holding the hammer is doing. The nail is
your "focal" awareness point and the hand is your "subsidiary" awareness
point. You are, at some level, aware of what your hand is doing, after all,
it is guiding the hammer. But you are concentrating on the nail and if you
let your concentration wander off of the nail and onto what your hand is
doing and feeling, you will miss the nail with your blows. He says that if
you are concentrating on the music as you would be in an extended subjective
listening session, your "focal" awareness is on the music allowing your
"subsidiary" awareness to pick out differences and anomalies in the
presentation. But if you shift your "focal" awareness to hearing differences
between test components in an ABX or double-blind tests, then your
"subsidiary" awareness becomes the part of the brain listening to the music
and this will actually lessen the listener's ability to hear any differences
between components.

I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you
actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like for these comments
to be on Harley's words, not on my capsule summation, above.

Thanks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Has anybody read "The Role of Critical Listening in
Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality" By Robert Harley? He
apparently presented this at the AES in May.

I guess this article dates back to 1991, and is also known as "The
Listener's Manifesto". In this latter form it was published in Stereophile
in 1992.

I gave it a once-over in 1999, after it was posted on the Stereophile web
site:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...812398b0e39c50

The Stereophile Listener's Manifesto article seems to be very similar to
this revised version of the paper that Harley is currently publicizing,
namely:

http://tinyurl.com/6ensud

I notice that the "Listener's Manifesto" is no longer posted on the
Stereophile web site:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/20/

The article was pulled off the SP web site, not that long after Harley left
Stereophile.

I'd certainly like to hear comments from Arny Kruger and
some of the other "objectivists" regulars on this forum.

I don't think a lot has changed since 1999.

To me it reads like "We've got to protect our
Phony-Baloney jobs, Gentlemen!" and is very self
serving.

Not to mention rather grotesquely misrepresenting the viewpoints of people
he does not agree with.

But he does make a few good points.

His main thrust, which he keeps going back to, seems to
center upon the notion that double-blind and ABX tests
are fundamentally flawed because the listeners are
concentrating on hearing differences rather than
listening to the music.

That's a well-known straw man argument.

He calls this "focal" vs.
"subsidiary" awareness and uses hitting a nail with a
hammer as an example. When you hit a nail you are
watching the nail, not what your hand which is holding
the hammer is doing. The nail is your "focal" awareness
point and the hand is your "subsidiary" awareness point.
You are, at some level, aware of what your hand is doing,
after all, it is guiding the hammer. But you are
concentrating on the nail and if you let your
concentration wander off of the nail and onto what your
hand is doing and feeling, you will miss the nail with
your blows.

Pound enough nails and you stop thinking about pounding nails in such a
conscious, detailed sort of way.

From time to time I do a construction project like that. While nailing,
every once in a while I sort of snap out of the nail pounding thing and
notice that my apron has no nails left in it, and that it is time to go get
some more.

He says that if you are concentrating on the
music as you would be in an extended subjective listening
session, your "focal" awareness is on the music allowing
your "subsidiary" awareness to pick out differences and
anomalies in the presentation. But if you shift your
"focal" awareness to hearing differences between test
components in an ABX or double-blind tests, then your
"subsidiary" awareness becomes the part of the brain
listening to the music and this will actually lessen the
listener's ability to hear any differences between
components.

Do enough ABX listening tests and you stop thinking about listening in such
a conscious, detailed sort of way. You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

[[email protected]]

He sets up a strawman argument by drawing the objective and subjective in
a cartoon fashion.

He does much hand waving and special pleading.

He assumes abilities of subjectiv approaches to have been established as
not existing in the brain alone and claimed effects to exist before the
ears.

Double blind tests can be done conforming to his ownlistening session
preferences. This addresses the false oppisition he posed in the part you
posted.

Too much science of the phycology of listening and other cognitive
experiences has gone under the bridge since the original 1991 publication
of his notions for most of them to be given serious consideration.

At the same time and in the same period no subjective claims ever left the
drawing board for confirmation outside those asserting them.

I read a recent interview in sterophile with a speaker maker. They do
double blind testing with trained lisenters who listen exactly as he
proposes. There preferences follow closely a set of parameters of speaker
performance and they can identify with great accuracy those which fall in
and out of those parameters.

Let him do the same with amps and cd players and other such gear and then
he can come back nd tell us the results. To support his claims they would
show exactly that his prefferences mirror the same gear if he knows what
is in the system and when he doesn't know.

Tests have been done where two bits of gear were before listeners and were
said to be swiched and preferences sought. In fact no switch was made but
preferencs switched accordingly. All he proposes must account for those
tests.

[C. Leeds]

Arny Krueger wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
Has anybody read "The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio
Equipment Quality" By Robert Harley? He apparently presented this at the AES
in May.

No, he presented it at AES in 1991. It was apparently less than
revolutionary.

He's just expanded republished it as part of a book, in May 2008.
It's much the same baselessly asserted junk it was in 1991.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[C. Leeds]

Sonnova wrote:
Has anybody read "The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio
Equipment Quality" By Robert Harley? He apparently presented this at the AES
in May.

http://tinyurl.com/6ensud

I'd certainly like to hear comments from Arny Kruger and some of the other
"objectivists" regulars on this forum. To me it reads like "We've got to
protect our Phoney-Baloney jobs, Gentlemen!" and is very self serving. But he
does make a few good points.

There are extremists on both sides of this issue, thus insuring no end
to what Harley calls "The Great Debate."

In my view, it is not a "Great Debate." For many who cling to neither
extreme, it is a dull, worn, tired exchange. Most audiophiles have long
since made up their minds on the matter. They can enjoy their music and
systems without the anguish that seems to plague those on opposing sides
of the debate.

[Steven Sullivan]

C. Leeds wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

That's a convenient story that some audiophiles
tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests.
Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without
a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs,
using software ABX -- they'd be
less anxiety-producing? (Personally i've found
them fun and interesting)

One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology,
on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross
error, which is why it's never used when reliable answers are needed in
studies involving audio discrimination. If subjectivists actually
realized the truth of that, imagine their anxiety!



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[C. Leeds]

Arny wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

I answered:

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

Steven Sullivan answers:

That's a convenient story that some audiophiles
tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests.

Test anxiety is a well known phenomenon. It's not confined to
audiophiles or abx testing.

Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without
a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs,
using software ABX -- they'd be
less anxiety-producing?

I never said that I suffered from test anxiety. I've conducted a number
of double blind tests, of which abx is just one type.

(Personally i've found
them fun and interesting)

It's a matter of preference. I find such testing duller than dirt.


One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology,
on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross
error...

Sighted methodology is also subject to error, and that's part of the
problem. There is no one simple definitive testing methodology.
Extremists on both sides of the "Great Debate" will dispute this, of
course. For them, this has much more to do with religion than it does
with science.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:56:11 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

C. Leeds wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

That's a convenient story that some audiophiles
tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests.
Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without
a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs,
using software ABX -- they'd be
less anxiety-producing? (Personally i've found
them fun and interesting)

One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology,
on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross
error, which is why it's never used when reliable answers are needed in
studies involving audio discrimination. If subjectivists actually
realized the truth of that, imagine their anxiety!

Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations of
what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific
endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can be
correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true. With
audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening
test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction
with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some way
alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the same
using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test
shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to
many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with
the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term listening
paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps
that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the
measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to find
all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind tests
are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those who
constructed the test have no control. Neither of these two opinions is, in
any way measurable for validity. This is not a "Great Debate", it's not even
a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that.

[[email protected]]

"Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations
of
what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific
endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can
be
correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true.
With
audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening
test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction
with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some
way
alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the
same
using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test
shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to
many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with
the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term
listening
paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps
that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the
measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to
find
all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind
tests
are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those
who
constructed the test have no control. Neither of these two opinions is,
in
any way measurable for validity. This is not a "Great Debate", it's not
even
a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that."

No, which is why I say double blind testing is by listening alone.

The long term listener using a double blind test is obligated to show he
too can distinguish between amps beyond levels of chance using listening
alone, but without benefit of knowing which is which. If his ability to
distinguish toggles on and off with knowing or not, then we know the
source and the question is resolved.

Those in the subjective camp want dearly for an impasse so they might then
return to "I heare it, I really do, don't you believe me?".

I gave an example of a speaker maker who uses double blind with trained
lisenters. They can by listening alone provide valid results showing that
if a given speaker falls outside a set of measurable parameters they have
found make for "good sound", they can easily spot it. This is done on the
basis of which speaker they prefer for its sound not by comparing it to
another.

There is no impasse, the tests have been done even using a test as simple
as putting a cloth over connections so the bit of gear active is not
known. If the subjective folk want to once again regain credibility then
they must do their own tests even if it means inventing one they consider
free of so called "flaws". They do not/have not and we are left once
again with "doin't you belive me?".

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you
actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like
for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my
capsule summation, above.
Thanks.

After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage ), I find the
article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in terms
that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to be
entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. And,
sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the
awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its
premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is about
as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial tit
on the proverbial bull.

Explanation:
ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences between
any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX testing,
it surely exists.

What it does not do is cover the very-long-term effects of one item
over another. That takes *at least* many hours, often many days to
discern - and is damned near impossible to effect in any entirely
objective manner. Often these effects are described by a generic
"listener fatigue" - a damned term for its vagueness and limitations,
but altogether an accurate description of the net result.

So, ABX to separate the obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - and a
long-term sighted test to decide whether the results of ABX are
actually accurate for *that* item in *your* listening environment.

Equipment reviewers are like movie reviewers - some parallel the
reader's tastes better than others. Those reviewers tend to be
respected by *their* parallel readers. All the rest are noise in the
background and have NOTHING to offer to those who do not share their
tastes. Simple as that, as, writing for myself, no one else on this
planet has my ears or my tastes or my concerns such that they are
able to listen for me and be certain of the results. Equipment
reviewers are also exactly as members of the oldest profession as
they are paid for their opinions of those items the manufacturers of
which provide that pay. Do you really think they are going to bite
the hand that feeds them in any material way? Consider what they do,
how they do it and so forth... this is not exactly Consumer Reports
that actually purchases what they test on the open market... not even
a teeny, tiny, eentsy, weentsy little bit.

What it comes down to, guys and gals, is purchase, operate and
maintain what YOU like. And the devil take the hindermost with the
rest of the world. If a reviewer happens to align with your peculiar
tastes, that is all well and good - but DO retain your independence
of judgement, thought and discernment, please.

Let the pundits and profits on either side of the issue rot in their
own self-created, self-serving, delusional idiocy - NONE of it
should influence your decisions, ever.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

There are extremists on both sides of this issue, thus insuring no end
to what Harley calls "The Great Debate."

In my view, it is not a "Great Debate." For many who cling to neither
extreme, it is a dull, worn, tired exchange. Most audiophiles have long
since made up their minds on the matter. They can enjoy their music and
systems without the anguish that seems to plague those on opposing sides
of the debate.

Of course science is the way one bypasses such individual perturbations of
opinion, of radical views, and of individual belief systems underlying
"making up ones mind".. There is no need of debate because the science
has been done.

This leaves one free of anguish knowing that wire is wire and amps and cd
players etc. within limits are today commodity items. One can with
complete freedom of mind ignore the marketing departments and fellow
travelr hifi mags who thrive on selling anguish that the next greatest and
more expensive item will do it for you.

[[email protected]]

I can identify a pleasing sound in seconds and in only a few seconds
more pick out the flaws in a hi fi sound, that's all that matters . Side
by side evaluations of equipment often reveal huge differences missed by
the "recollection' route. That's all ye need know. SD

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you
actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like
for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my
capsule summation, above.
Thanks.

After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage ), I find the
article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in terms
that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to be
entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. And,
sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the
awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its
premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is about
as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial tit
on the proverbial bull.

Explanation:
ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences between
any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX testing,
it surely exists.

Actaully, ABX (DBT) is very useful in discerning quite subtle differences,
particularly when discrimination training is employed.
So the rest of your argument falls apart.

Your 'long term listening' method requires the same validation against sighted
error, as short term: a blinding step. Take as long as you like
to make sure you can hear those differences: then prove it
with a blind control. Simple, no?

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

C. Leeds wrote:
Arny wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

I answered:

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

Steven Sullivan answers:

That's a convenient story that some audiophiles
tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests.

Test anxiety is a well known phenomenon. It's not confined to
audiophiles or abx testing.

And yet hundreds if not thousands of findings have been
made in experimental psychology over the years,
while employing tests of various sorts. Strangely,
the science is not considered invalid, nor is
the methodology.

Really, you'll have to do better than that. The
existence of test anxiety doesn't invalidate ABX
testing.

Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without
a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs,
using software ABX -- they'd be
less anxiety-producing?

I never said that I suffered from test anxiety. I've conducted a number
of double blind tests, of which abx is just one type.

(Personally i've found
them fun and interesting)

It's a matter of preference. I find such testing duller than dirt.

Well, at least you're not 'anxious'.


One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology,
on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross
error...

Sighted methodology is also subject to error, and that's part of the
problem.

That's a bit of an understatement.
Sighted methodology is VASTLY more subject to error, than a
well-controlled methodology.

NO competent scientists studying audible difference would ever emply
sighted methodology.


There is no one simple definitive testing methodology.


But there is definitely one method NOT to use.


--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
I can identify a pleasing sound in seconds and in only a few seconds
more pick out the flaws in a hi fi sound, that's all that matters . Side
by side evaluations of equipment often reveal huge differences missed by
the "recollection' route. That's all ye need know. SD

ABX *is* 'side by side' comparison. You have constant access to
both A and B, as well as X. THe only difference between sighted
'side by side' and ABX is that you can only use your ears to
decide which one is X.



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:24:20 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

"Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations
of
what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific
endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can
be
correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true.
With
audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening
test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction
with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some
way
alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the
same
using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test
shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to
many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with
the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term
listening
paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps
that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the
measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to
find
all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind
tests
are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those
who
constructed the test have no control. Neither of these two opinions is,
in
any way measurable for validity. This is not a "Great Debate", it's not
even
a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that."

No, which is why I say double blind testing is by listening alone.

The long term listener using a double blind test is obligated to show he
too can distinguish between amps beyond levels of chance using listening
alone, but without benefit of knowing which is which. If his ability to
distinguish toggles on and off with knowing or not, then we know the
source and the question is resolved.

Those in the subjective camp want dearly for an impasse so they might then
return to "I heare it, I really do, don't you believe me?".

I gave an example of a speaker maker who uses double blind with trained
lisenters. They can by listening alone provide valid results showing that
if a given speaker falls outside a set of measurable parameters they have
found make for "good sound", they can easily spot it. This is done on the
basis of which speaker they prefer for its sound not by comparing it to
another.

There is no impasse, the tests have been done even using a test as simple
as putting a cloth over connections so the bit of gear active is not
known. If the subjective folk want to once again regain credibility then
they must do their own tests even if it means inventing one they consider
free of so called "flaws". They do not/have not and we are left once
again with "doin't you belive me?".


But, like I said. They are BOTH subjective because no measurements are
involved. In both case, the results are one does or doesn't hear.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it
is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the
flaws of the abx methodology.

Performance anxiety is very common. Anxiety management is part of life.
There is a fairly reliable solution to performance anxiety, and that is to
simply to get a lot of good experience with whatever it is that is causing
you anxiety.

I don't see people running around knocking playing sports where scores are
kept because some people get overly anxious about losing.

Personally, I find that sighted evaluations cause me a great deal of
anxiety. For one thing, I'm anxious about having my biases affect the
outcome of the evaluation. I'm also anxious about basing the outcome of the
evaluation on what amounts to being just one trial.

Some of the people I've seen who were the most anxious about ABX testing are
people who have made claims that are known to be impossible, but can
basically only adjucated based on a blind test. For example I know of
several journalists who have made well-documented public claims about
hearing things that psychoacoustics says just can't be heard. Things like
hearing a 0.01 dB volume difference. Of course they are anxious - they've
promised the stars!

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 13, 12:14*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote:
I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you
actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like
for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my
capsule summation, above.
Thanks.
After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage
( *http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage*), I find *the
article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in *terms
that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to *be
entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. *And,
sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the
awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its
premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is *about
as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial *tit
on the proverbial bull.
Explanation:
ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences *between
any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX *testing,
it surely exists.

Actaully, ABX (DBT) is very useful in discerning quite subtle differences,
particularly when discrimination training is employed.
So the rest of your argument falls apart.

With respect, not hardly.

What I am "arguing" is that one should purchase and maintain what one
chooses and enjoys. Tests notwithstanding, opinion (of others)
notwithstanding, cost notwithstanding, smoke-and-mirrors
notwithstanding. One should arrive at the choice by whatever means one
chooses - same "notwithstandings" as above.

The end.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 13, 12:14*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote:
I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you
actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like
for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my
capsule summation, above.
Thanks.
After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage
( *http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage*), I find *the
article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in *terms
that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to *be
entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. *And,
sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the
awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its
premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is *about
as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial *tit
on the proverbial bull.
Explanation:
ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences *between
any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX *testing,
it surely exists.

Actaully, ABX (DBT) is very useful in discerning quite subtle differences,
particularly when discrimination training is employed.
So the rest of your argument falls apart.

With respect, not hardly.

What I am "arguing" is that one should purchase and maintain what one
chooses and enjoys.

No one argues with that. But you argued rather more than that.

Tests notwithstanding, opinion (of others)
notwithstanding, cost notwithstanding, smoke-and-mirrors
notwithstanding. One should arrive at the choice by whatever means one
chooses - same "notwithstandings" as above.

The end.

No, because what we're talking about isn't people buying stuff and enjoying
it. We're talking about people making CLAIMS about what they can hear.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[[email protected]]

There is no impasse, the tests have been done even using a test as simple
as putting a cloth over connections so the bit of gear active is not
known. If the subjective folk want to once again regain credibility then
they must do their own tests even if it means inventing one they consider
free of so called "flaws". They do not/have not and we are left once
again with "doin't you belive me?".

But, like I said. They are BOTH subjective because no measurements are
involved. In both case, the results are one does or doesn't hear.

The tests are to exclude the possibility that what is claimed to be heard
doesn't appear in the signal before the ears.

That our ear/brain perception process is not hooked up to a meter as the
test is done is irrelevant. It is a claim about human experience, so we
test for the reality of that reported experience by looking to see if
something as a source is in the signal chain.

Using the word "subjective" in any sense neither adds nor detracts from
the tests. The measure is not meter movement but numbers of correct as
compared to chance reports of the clamed factor existing before the ear in
the signal train by putting it in and removing it from the signal train.

If when the proported source of the factor in the chain does not conform
to it being there or not beyond chance, the claim has been excluded.

As above, if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor is source dependant and does exist before the ears in the
signal chain and not after the ears as a process of the ear/brain
perception function.. They must show that inserting and removing the
proported source makes a difference absent knowing the active source.

[C. Leeds]

wrote:

...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor ...

No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here
and "be heard."

[[email protected]]

...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor ...

No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here
and "be heard."

When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion. Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual.
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 15, 5:23*pm, wrote:
...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor ...

No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here
and "be heard."

When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual. *
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions.

With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the
"Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever
means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. Opinion expressed-
as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force.

When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the
facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others
start driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or
means for discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state
of affairs.

I make my choices in audio on several often conflicting levels,
including pure whim, challenge and sometimes shear cussidness. I am
about to rebuild a first-issue Dynaco Stereo 120 - the "glass-in-a-
blender" version. Why? Not as if I need another power-amp, but for the
simple pleasure of taking a Trabant and making it into an almost-VW,
for an automotive analogy. And I run a bunch of tube stuff - not
exactly the best 'measuring' equipment out there. But I like it, how
it sounds and even (Oh, the SHAME of it!!) how it looks...

So, please get off dividing into armed and hostile camps - this is
emphatically NOT revealed religion. Nobody's "credibility" is at issue
- except to the extent that they fault others based on said revealed
religion. And then it is gone entirely.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:44:36 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Arny wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

I answered:

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

Steven Sullivan answers:

That's a convenient story that some audiophiles
tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests.

Test anxiety is a well known phenomenon. It's not confined to
audiophiles or abx testing.

Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without
a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs,
using software ABX -- they'd be
less anxiety-producing?

I never said that I suffered from test anxiety. I've conducted a number
of double blind tests, of which abx is just one type.

(Personally i've found
them fun and interesting)

It's a matter of preference. I find such testing duller than dirt.


One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology,
on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross
error...

Sighted methodology is also subject to error, and that's part of the
problem. There is no one simple definitive testing methodology.
Extremists on both sides of the "Great Debate" will dispute this, of
course. For them, this has much more to do with religion than it does
with science.


Since this "debate" is irreconcilable, it comes down PRECISELY to religion
and for the same reason. It is a belief in things that cannot be quantified
or verified by any known methodology in any way which would satisfy both
sides of the question, so each side has to base their particular belief on
the assumption that they are right.

Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in the
same way. The ear, after all, is merely a mechanism, a transducer in fact.
The thing behind the ear, the brain, interprets the signals it hears as sound
and we don't know to what extent those interpretations are similar from one
person to another - even if we could be sure that the mechanics of the ear
operate the same in all perfectly functioning ears, and we can't even tell
that except for simple frequency domain sensitivity tests. IOW, at the
moment, there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in this because we
don't know enough about the variables in the human perception of music.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:26:17 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you
actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like
for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my
capsule summation, above.
Thanks.

After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage ), I find the
article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in terms
that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to be
entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. And,
sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the
awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its
premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is about
as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial tit
on the proverbial bull.

Explanation:
ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences between
any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX testing,
it surely exists.

What it does not do is cover the very-long-term effects of one item
over another. That takes *at least* many hours, often many days to
discern - and is damned near impossible to effect in any entirely
objective manner. Often these effects are described by a generic
"listener fatigue" - a damned term for its vagueness and limitations,
but altogether an accurate description of the net result.

So, ABX to separate the obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - and a
long-term sighted test to decide whether the results of ABX are
actually accurate for *that* item in *your* listening environment.

Equipment reviewers are like movie reviewers - some parallel the
reader's tastes better than others. Those reviewers tend to be
respected by *their* parallel readers. All the rest are noise in the
background and have NOTHING to offer to those who do not share their
tastes. Simple as that, as, writing for myself, no one else on this
planet has my ears or my tastes or my concerns such that they are
able to listen for me and be certain of the results. Equipment
reviewers are also exactly as members of the oldest profession as
they are paid for their opinions of those items the manufacturers of
which provide that pay. Do you really think they are going to bite
the hand that feeds them in any material way? Consider what they do,
how they do it and so forth... this is not exactly Consumer Reports
that actually purchases what they test on the open market... not even
a teeny, tiny, eentsy, weentsy little bit.

What it comes down to, guys and gals, is purchase, operate and
maintain what YOU like. And the devil take the hindermost with the
rest of the world. If a reviewer happens to align with your peculiar
tastes, that is all well and good - but DO retain your independence
of judgement, thought and discernment, please.

Let the pundits and profits on either side of the issue rot in their
own self-created, self-serving, delusional idiocy - NONE of it
should influence your decisions, ever.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Very well reasoned, and for my money, pretty spot-on. Equipment reviews, like
any other review, is to INTRODUCE the reader to a component, not to convince
him/her to buy it. If one id familiar with a certain reviewer's body of work,
then the review becomes useful on another level. One can say that (for
instance) "Tony Cordesman and I generally agree on what sounds good and I
know this because I have been reading Tony for many years. If he says that
this piece of equipment is very good, I should perhaps make an effort to hear
it for myself." Of course the opposite is also true. "John Atkinson and I
NEVER agree. He HATED this pre-amp, that means I'll probably like it. I must
make an effort to audition it."

Beyond that, one should probably take most reviews with a grain of salt.
Enjoy them for entertainment and to introduce you to equipment that you may
be unfamiliar with, and finally to perhaps peak your interest, but no more.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:36:38 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it
is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the
flaws of the abx methodology.

Performance anxiety is very common. Anxiety management is part of life.
There is a fairly reliable solution to performance anxiety, and that is to
simply to get a lot of good experience with whatever it is that is causing
you anxiety.

Good point.

I don't see people running around knocking playing sports where scores are
kept because some people get overly anxious about losing.

Personally, I find that sighted evaluations cause me a great deal of
anxiety. For one thing, I'm anxious about having my biases affect the
outcome of the evaluation. I'm also anxious about basing the outcome of the
evaluation on what amounts to being just one trial.

Some of the people I've seen who were the most anxious about ABX testing are
people who have made claims that are known to be impossible, but can
basically only adjucated based on a blind test. For example I know of
several journalists who have made well-documented public claims about
hearing things that psychoacoustics says just can't be heard. Things like
hearing a 0.01 dB volume difference. Of course they are anxious - they've
promised the stars!

That's one of the problems with high-end audio as a hobby, isn't it? People
have been so turned-off by some of the claims of many of these high-end audio
personalities, that the whole field has been tainted by some kind of voodoo
prejudice. Examples:

Painting the edges of one's CDs with a green pen

Putting bricks on top of components makes them "sound better"

Specially treated digital "clocks" lower the noise floor of audio components
when plugged in to the same mains outlet.

Myrtlewood blocks placed on components make them sound better

Lifting speaker cables off the floor using special ceramic "cable stands" (or
inverted coffee cups) makes the speakers sound better

setting up expensive wooden frames containing turned wooden rods (which look
like something out of a fat reducing machine) all over the room improves
imaging.

"Demagnitizing" CDs and vinyl records make both sound better.

Suspending the connection from one's tone-arm to one's pre-amp using nylon
monofilament line so that the cable never touches a surface improves the
sound.

These are just a few of what must be literally hundreds of such fanciful
notions that so many audiophiles have taken to heart as to support a
lucrative business for those who are willing to cater to these preposterous
propositions with (not inexpensive) hardware. No doubt that the likes of Enid
Lumley has made many a latter-day snake-oil salesman rich.

And I didn't even mention cables and interconnects - once.

[[email protected]]

When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual.
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions. "

With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or
the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever
means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. Opinion expressed-
as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force.

When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the
facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start
driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for
discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs.

When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a
broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone
beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an
asserted objective reality. We then want to know if that reported
perception is in the wire or in his head as a function of the ear/brain
process.

Now we have science which allows us to move beyond the "I hear it, I
really do, don't you believe me?" state of affairs. If that wire has some
physical factor then we want to know it independent of the individual
reporting his perception.. Don't you want to know that too and isn't part
of this hobby knowing what is really happening so assertions can be put
aside and we can enjoy the experience knowing $3000 wire adds nothing to
the experience?

This group does not exclude those whose enjoyment is in knowing such
things and discussiong of how they can be achieved. The group does not
exclude educating ourselves about how to wade in and survive the marketing
depts. and fellow traveler hifi mags. in the sale of questionable
expectations and offering to reduce the "audio nervosa" they have produced
by following their advice and buyiing their products.

Do we want to "discuss" endlessly the virtues of that $3000 wire against a
mere $1500 wire and what double the price buys in listening experience?
The obvious first question would seem to be "is wire wire?" which makes
the above discussion premature and moot if it is.

As the above objective areas are not excluded, I have no problem having
that $3000 vs. $1500 wire discussion but understanding that questiones
might reasonably be posed as to the psych/physical principles involved.
That goes both ways.

[[email protected]]

"I can identify a pleasing sound in seconds and in only a few seconds
more pick out the flaws in a hi fi sound, that's all that matters . Side
by side evaluations of equipment often reveal huge differences missed by
the "recollection' route. That's all ye need know. SD"

Ok, and if side by side listening alone fails to be able to pick out
either, pleasing or not? That is the present situation. Remove knowing
which side by side item is active and "identify" and "pick" fall to levels
of chance alone. That, by listening alone, is what the tests show; many
many times now.

[bob]

On Jul 12, 6:40*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:56:11 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):



C. Leeds wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

That's a convenient story that some audiophiles
tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests.
Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without
a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs,
using software ABX *-- they'd be
less anxiety-producing? *(Personally i've found
them fun and interesting)

One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology,
on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross
error, which is why it's never used when reliable answers are needed in
studies involving audio discrimination. *If subjectivists actually
realized the truth of that, imagine their anxiety!

Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations of
what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific
endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can be
correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true. With
audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening
test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction
with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some way
alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the same
using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test
shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to
many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with
the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term listening
paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps
that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the
measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to find
all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind tests
are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those who
constructed the test have no control. *Neither of these two opinions is, in
any way measurable for validity. *This is not a "Great Debate", it's not even
a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that.

There are a number of problems here. First and most importantly, we
*can* measure "what people hear." It's just air compression, after
all. We can't measure what they think in response to what they hear,
but we can demonstrate that what they think is often completely
independent of what they hear. And what they hear, as determined by
objective listening tests, correlates very closely with measurements
of electrical signals. The long-term listening myth has been debunked
here previously.

The reason this isn't a "debate" is that it is all settled science--in
the sense that all of these questions have been explored at sufficient
depth that there exists a scientific consensus on them. There aren't
any unexplained phenomena out there that would cause that consensus to
unravel. People like Harley can't point to any such phenomena. All
they can do is deny what everybody else has determined to be true.

Scientists don't *debate* Denialists; they debunk them.

bob

[C. Leeds]

wrote:
...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor ...

I answered:

No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here
and "be heard."

outsor now says:

...being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion.

Pardon me, but this is not a strictly scientific newsgroup and
contributors here are permitted to express their opinions. If you want
to change that, you can work to change the group's charter - but the
matter is not for you to decide alone.

Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual.
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions.

FYI: Most of us here have at least a passing familiarity with science.

[C. Leeds]

wrote:
...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor ...

I answered:

No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here
and "be heard."

outsor now says:

...being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion.

Pardon me, but this is not a strictly scientific newsgroup and
contributors here are permitted to express their opinions. If you want
to change that, you can work to change the group's charter - but the
matter is not for you to decide alone.

Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual.
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions.

FYI: Most of us here have at least a passing familiarity with science.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Pardon me, but this is not a strictly scientific
newsgroup and contributors here are permitted to express
their opinions. If you want to change that, you can work
to change the group's charter - but the matter is not for
you to decide alone.

Hmm, what is the meaning of "permitted to express their opinons"?

I think it means that the moderators won't bounce the post because it is OT.

I see plenty of latitude for that on RAHE.

I also see some confusion between "permitted to express their opinons" and
"express opinions without controversy".

If someone posts an opinion and someone else deconstructs it on the grounds
that it represents a scientific impossibility, that would be just fine,
right?

I see no promise that any On Topic opinion will be posted and all
controversy related to it will supressed or filtered, and somehow that is
fine with me. ;-)

[[email protected]]

wrote:
...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor ...

I answered:

No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here
and "be heard."

outsor now says:

...being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion.

Pardon me, but this is not a strictly scientific newsgroup and
contributors here are permitted to express their opinions. If you want
to change that, you can work to change the group's charter - but the
matter is not for you to decide alone.

Opinion is however quite different then
that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual.
That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer
questions.

FYI: Most of us here have at least a passing familiarity with science.

I regret if my writing was misunderstood, it was never about restricting
anyone participating and expressing an opinion.

This started when one poster said we are at an impasse with all opinions
on an equal footing. I hastened to mention that we can move beyond
individual opinion, everyone has one, and use science to resolve the
assertions of the subjective folk.

This has been done and done so by using the processes of science. If the
subjective folk then want to be on an equal footing then they should be
prepared to present same in support of their claims beyond what little
opinion has to offer. This would be evidence independent of individual
opinion.

If science is a familiar topic then for subjective folk doing it should
pose no problem. This concerns assertions about claims of objective
reality as to how, or not, various bits of hifi gear affect a signal
before it reaches the ear. The source of subjective differences is said
to be individual independent,ie. not in their head, so it is proper to ask
that individual independent evidence be shown that the signal change is
within the hifi gear.

[bob]

On Jul 16, 8:05*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Since this "debate" is irreconcilable, it comes down PRECISELY to religion
and for the same reason. It is a belief in things that cannot be quantified
or verified by any known methodology in any way which would satisfy both
sides of the question, so each side has to base their particular belief on
the assumption that they are right.

This is simply wrong. All of these things can be quantified, and what
happens in Audioland is a pseudo-debate between people who are willing
to quantify them and people who are not. There is no methodology that
would satisfy both geologists and flat-earthers, but that doesn't mean
their "disagreement" is a religious one.

Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in the
same way.

I suggest you study some of the research on the subject before you
venture here. Peoples' brains do indeed react to sound in the same
way; it's their interpretation of those sounds that differs--and
that's a multi-stage process. In a sense, one of the things that
objective listening tests does is to help determine whether it is the
sound itself, or the interpretation of the sound, that differs.

The ear, after all, is merely a mechanism, a transducer in fact.
The thing behind the ear, the brain, interprets the signals it hears as sound
and we don't know to what extent those interpretations are similar from one
person to another - even if we could be sure that the mechanics of the ear
operate the same in all perfectly functioning ears, and we can't even tell
that except for simple frequency domain sensitivity tests. IOW, at the
moment, there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in this because we
don't know enough about the variables in the human perception of music.

"Perception of music" is part of the interpretation stage, not the
hearing stage. (There is no such physical reality as music; a sound is
musical only because you interpret it as such.) And the science is way
ahead of you on this stuff.

bob

[C. Leeds]

wrote:

This started when one poster said we are at an impasse with all opinions
on an equal footing.

Please provide a quote and attribution for this claim of an "impasse."
It appears you are paraphrasing and misrepresenting what this unnamed
poster said.

I hastened to mention that we can move beyond
individual opinion...

Don't be silly. Some opinions are matters of simple preference. There is
no need to "move beyond."

This has been done and done so by using the processes of science. If the
subjective folk then want to be on an equal footing then they should be
prepared to present same in support of their claims beyond what little
opinion has to offer. This would be evidence independent of individual
opinion.

Again: "subjective folk" in this group need not present scientific
documentation of any opinion or preference, your demands notwithstanding.


If science is a familiar topic then for subjective folk doing it should
pose no problem.

Again, "subjective folk" need not conduct scientifically valid
experiments simply to satisfy you. (As an aside, conducting a valid
listening test is not as simple as it might appear, and certainly not as
simple as you suggest here.)

it is proper to ask
that individual independent evidence be shown...

This newsgroup is governed by charter. It is not for you to unilaterally
declare what is "proper."

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:51:40 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 12, 6:40*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:56:11 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):



C. Leeds wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

That's a convenient story that some audiophiles
tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests.
Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without
a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs,
using software ABX *-- they'd be
less anxiety-producing? *(Personally i've found
them fun and interesting)

One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology,
on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross
error, which is why it's never used when reliable answers are needed in
studies involving audio discrimination. *If subjectivists actually
realized the truth of that, imagine their anxiety!

Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations of
what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific
endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can
be
correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true. With
audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening
test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction
with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some way
alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the same
using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test
shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to
many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with
the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term listening
paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps
that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the
measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to
find
all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind
tests
are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those
who
constructed the test have no control. *Neither of these two opinions is, in
any way measurable for validity. *This is not a "Great Debate", it's not
even
a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that.

There are a number of problems here. First and most importantly, we
*can* measure "what people hear." It's just air compression, after
all.

No we can't. You just said it yourself. We can measure the air compression
(and subsequent rarefaction), yes, but what we can't measure is how the human
brain interprets those mechanical changes in air pressure. We might pick-up
those variations in air pressure with our ears, but we "hear" them with our
brains, and that, we cannot measure. Also, I'd like for you to show me a
measuring device that can pick-up those variations of air pressure that we
call sound and then interpret them in such a way as to tell us something
about what they mean. IOW, can we measure the sound in a listening room in
such a way as to tell whether or not, say, speaker cables make any difference
in the way the speakers themselves perform? Without starting another argument
about whether or not speaker cables can, in any real way, affect the sound of
speakers, I'd say the answer is no. So, in any but the broadest terms, the
answer is that we cannot measure what people hear, or even what they think
they hear.

We can't measure what they think in response to what they hear,
but we can demonstrate that what they think is often completely
independent of what they hear.

Yes. Nut what they hear is determined by a combination of the mechanical
acuity of their hearing apparatus (the physical ear) in conjunction with
their brain.

And what they hear, as determined by
objective listening tests, correlates very closely with measurements
of electrical signals. The long-term listening myth has been debunked
here previously.

Debunked but not proved.

The reason this isn't a "debate" is that it is all settled science--in
the sense that all of these questions have been explored at sufficient
depth that there exists a scientific consensus on them. There aren't
any unexplained phenomena out there that would cause that consensus to
unravel.

I'll agree, but I'm sure that others don't.

People like Harley can't point to any such phenomena. All
they can do is deny what everybody else has determined to be true.

It certainly seems that way. But then his position is to save the credibility
of his job.

Scientists don't *debate* Denialists; they debunk them.

Agreed. That's the reason why I said that this is not a debate. Certainly, on
one side, its more like a religion. But I know a number of objectivists who
are pretty non-dispassionate about their beliefs (even though those beliefs
are backed by good science) as well. There is "religion" on both sides of
this issue.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


With all due respect, this group is not about "Science",
or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the
hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by
others, that is. Opinion expressed- as-fact is as
anathema as fact expressed-as-force.

The idea that facts destroy enjoyment and hobbies is completely false. Many
hobbies are strongly based on reliable facts, such as golf scores, lap
times, bowling games, etc.

Audio has always been inherently a technological hobby. There have always
been attempts to measure the enjoyment-producing qualities of audio
equipment. I have found it interesting to review the literature of consumer
and professional audio, which goes back to the late 1920s and early 1930s. I
started tracking audio in real time as it were in the middle 1950s.

There have been a steady and ongoing stream of attempts to quantify the
enjoyment-producing capabilities of audio systems.

When those individuals who are so wedded to their
perception of "the facts" as to preclude the ability to
respect the choices of others start driveling on about
said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for
discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad
state of affairs.

The idea that facts destroy the means for discussion is a truly remarkable
and fanciful thought that is widely contradicted by the facts of life. Do
baseball statistics destroy the ability to have favorite baseball players?
Reality is the exact opposite, most discussions of the capabilities of
various players are dominated by recitations of relevant facts or figures.
There's a very common reason why someone doesn't want to talk about the
relevant statistics for their favorite player, and that is when the player's
statistics really suck.

I make my choices in audio on several often conflicting
levels, including pure whim, challenge and sometimes
sheer cussidness.

That's a personal choice that anybody who wants to can make. In Detroit I
can go to a car dealership and see brand new cars or I can go to the Henry
Ford Museum and see a lot of very old ones. We have an annual large scale
celebration of cars called the Woodward Dream cruise. I love it. Most of the
vehicles one sees there are most definitely not new, or current, or even in
daily use.

I am about to rebuild a first-issue
Dynaco Stereo 120 - the "glass-in-a- blender" version.
Why? Not as if I need another power-amp, but for the
simple pleasure of taking a Trabant and making it into an
almost-VW, for an automotive analogy. And I run a bunch
of tube stuff - not exactly the best 'measuring'
equipment out there. But I like it, how it sounds and
even (Oh, the SHAME of it!!) how it looks...

Again, that's a personal choice that people get to make. I happen to have a
modest amount of legacy gear, such as perfectly stock and original Dyna 120
and a CDP 101 that meet original spec, a Pioneer TX-9100 tuner, a PAT-5 and
a CJ 2 preamp, etc. However, it is what it is, and that doesn't bother me a
bit. I just don't insult people's intelligence by claiming any special
capabilities along the lines of sonic accuracy. Actually, the 120 and the
101 sound just fine despite their frequent libeling by ignorant audiophiles.

So, please get off dividing into armed and hostile camps
- this is emphatically NOT revealed religion.

I'm not sure where this religious belief issue comes from, if not the people
who can't tell the difference between the proper place for science and the
proper place for religion and keep up mixing up the two.

Nobody's
"credibility" is at issue - except to the extent that
they fault others based on said revealed religion. And
then it is gone entirely.

Science can be a kind of religion for some people, and religion can be a
science for some people. But most people seem to have a pretty good grip on
which is which and manage their influence in their lives appropriately and
in accordance with their personal preferences.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jul 17, 5:51*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

FYI: Most of us here have at least a passing familiarity with science.

Maybe not:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Clarke's Third Law

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[C. Leeds]

I wrote:

this is not a strictly scientific
newsgroup and contributors here are permitted to express
their opinions.

Arny answers:

Hmm, what is the meaning of "permitted to express their opinons"?

Just what it says.

If someone posts an opinion and someone else deconstructs it on the grounds
that it represents a scientific impossibility, that would be just fine,
right?

Hasn't this group always permitted discussion based on both opinion and
science?