| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Steven Sullivan wrote:
TonyP wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: TonyP wrote: I have heard differences in some amps that I own. My Carver 1.5t does not sound the same as my Onkyo M510 or the Counterpoint SA220. I was giving a friend the Onkyo (didn't need 3 amps and just had the Carver serviced and spec'ed), so we hooked it up to my Acoustat 1+1's medallion mod speakers. We listened between the Onkyo and Counterpoint. They both sounded very good. I would have thought that the SA220 would have 'destroyed' the Onkyo considering the price difference. The Onkyo cost me $160, the Counterpoint, $2500. I would probably be hard pressed to say which was better if my eyes were closed,or even if I could say which was which. We only listened briefly. Possibly, with a more detailed listening session, differences might have been heard. But, for that brief session, the Onkyo and Counterpoint sounded the same. I gave him the Onkyo. The Carver sounded 'different'. It was readily apparent. Nothing subtle. I even hooked my Pioneer Elite receiver, then my JVC receiver to the speakers, and *anyone* could hear the difference. These are all products with vanishing low distortion and wide frequency responses, yet they sound different. You write all this, then chide Stewart with the classic '*YOU* heard no difference' argument when he reported his *controlled* listening versus measurement results. Do you not see the contradiction? WHy is your anecdote evidentially superior? 'YOU heard no difference' would still apply; moreover, yours weren't even *blinded* comparisons, so they suffer from *additional* sources of error. Nowhere in my writing above, is Stewart's name mentioned. Indeed, but elsewhere, you do reply as I've indicated. I assume that your rhetorical position does not change from thread to thread. My reply is above and stands as is. Do not try to make it apply to Stewart or anyone else. It was not meant nor written in that fashion. Don't try to twist it to fit your agenda. Nowhere. Are you saying that what you write in one post, does not apply in another? If you are going to question Stewart on the basis you used, you should be aware that your own report is not immune to the same critique. My post here is a statement of what happened. That is all. Why you insist on making it more than what it is, is beyond me. I have not questioned Stewart in this post. Nor you. Nor anyone. As for critique, I expected it. His results were his, mine are mine, and those that were there, agreed. They heard a difference. And it was obvious. Nothing subtle. Nothing that you would have to strain to hear. And.. it is repeatable. I never claimed that my "anecdote evidentially" superior. That is your statement, not mine. I claim no superiority in testing, listening, measuring, anything. Just reporting the experience. That is all. And, unless you were there, you either accept or don't accept the results. But, you can not deny my personal experience or those that were there. But I can question their interpretation of it. You can, but you would be asking the wrong person. I reported the results. You don't have to be "blinded" to hear a difference. Just listen and be honest. If you are ever in the LI, NY area, let me know, for it is repeatable. There is no contradiction except you choose not to accept my results because of *your* bias. Who determines that "blinded" is a better test? Again, everyone has a bias, even myself. But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear. But that doesn't mean you're *right*. People who think they hear differences...really do think they hear differences. I don't question that. But they can easily be wrong. So more rigorously-gathered evidence, such as Stewart reported, would help deteremine if they're right. *Right* as far as.... As for the sonic differences, they were there. Everyone heard them. Everyone. And if you were there, you would have also. They were not wrong. And, since you weren't there, you can only speculate (wrongly). It was an impromptu listening session with "stuff" I had laying around. That was all. I have no ax to grind with those that can't hear a difference. Good for you. You can save a lot of money and buy a competent receiver, Home Depot speaker wire and Radio Shack gold interconnects, decent efficient speakers and live in audio bliss. I wish that were the case for me. There's good news: it might be! Try trusting *only* your ears...which means, alas, using a bias-controlled comparison protocol. Again, I listen with my ears, not measuring instruments. I am sure that you picked all your equipment with a "blindfold" on (meaning DBT). Nowhere, in the quote above, did I mention measuring instruments. Nowhere. In fact, I'm suggesting you must use your ears for proving the presence of audible difference between cables, amps, and other components where there's little good reason to expect large audible differences. To use your ears in this fashion, you have to eliminate the bais inherent in sighted comparison. When you do, you might find that you needn't spend the amounts of money you've been getting, to get the *same* audible result. Which goes to the root of your lament. You keep mentioning *bias*. How do you know if someone has a bias or not? Again, ad infinitum, I had no ax to grind on the equipment. It was all mine. The Phase 400 (which I thought was a killer amp) didn't sound as good as the Carver 1.5t, which didn't sound as good as the Counterpoint SA200, which, to my surprise sounded almost the same as the "inexpensive" Onkyo M510 (which was less than 1/10th the price of the Counterpoint). Now, if I were so biased by sighted observation, I certainly would not have come up with that. The bias inherent in sighted tests can be the same in DBT. If you beleive there is no difference in equipment, there won't be. And, to repeat myself again, if you or anyone is happy with a "competent" receiever, RS and HD cables and interconnects along with decent speakers, fine. Enjoy. I am not. And.... there is a difference in the equipment that I own. Again, anytime you are in the LI, NY area, you are more than welcome to stop by and listen for yourself. |
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Bob Marcus wrote:
TonyP wrote: Nowhere in my writing above, is Stewart's name mentioned. Nowhere. His results were his, mine are mine, and those that were there, agreed. They heard a difference. And it was obvious. Nothing subtle. Nothing that you would have to strain to hear. And.. it is repeatable. No, it is not. Sighted listening tests are NEVER repeatable. Ever. That's because you cannot repeat all the conditions of the test--in particular, the test subjects' exact prior knowledge and opinions of the things being tested. Even if you use the same subjects, their knowledge/opinions have now been affected by their experience in the earlier test. Yes it is. Considering you were not there, it amazes me how you can come to that conclusion. You don't know the test subjects backgrounds, so you can not make that assertation on their prior knowledge. And yes, their knowledge and opinions are affected. They knew what they heard. And it is, again, repeatable. The virtue of blind tests is that they remove these factors from consideration. Thus, you can repeat a blind test, either with the same subjects or with different ones. I never claimed that my "anecdote evidentially" superior. That is your statement, not mine. I claim no superiority in testing, listening, measuring, anything. Just reporting the experience. That is all. And, unless you were there, you either accept or don't accept the results. But, you can not deny my personal experience or those that were there. No one denied your experience. Some questioned the significance of it, for very good reasons. There is no significance to it at all. Just passing on an experience that is repeatable with the equipment that I have. Not hard to do. You don't have to be "blinded" to hear a difference. Just listen and be honest. If you are ever in the LI, NY area, let me know, for it is repeatable. There is no contradiction except you choose not to accept my results because of *your* bias. Who determines that "blinded" is a better test? Actually, that would be experts in human perception, who can be found in the psychology department of any accredited university in the country. There are a few of those on Long Island. Look one up. I stated that if you or anyone is in the LI, NY area, I will repeat it. Wife is a psychologist. Don't have to look one up. Again, everyone has a bias, even myself. But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear. You've just contradicted yourself. No I haven't. |
|
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
|
#245
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:58:26 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton More garbage! A green edge does *not* absorb red light, it simply reflects green light, and a CD laser is any case infra-red, not visible red light. Further, if there were to be any effect on the reading ability of the head, it could not possible translate to specific areas of the spectrum. because this simply isn't how digital audio works. While agree with just about all you said on this issue and I thought this explination for how green pens work was posted as a joke. Green pigment does absorb red light. It absorbs *every* colour except green. It has no special relationship with red light, this is just another myth which only affects human colour perception. And anyway, CD lasers aren't red. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
|
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
TonyP wrote:
Bob Marcus wrote: TonyP wrote: Nowhere in my writing above, is Stewart's name mentioned. Nowhere. His results were his, mine are mine, and those that were there, agreed. They heard a difference. And it was obvious. Nothing subtle. Nothing that you would have to strain to hear. And.. it is repeatable. No, it is not. Sighted listening tests are NEVER repeatable. Ever. That's because you cannot repeat all the conditions of the test--in particular, the test subjects' exact prior knowledge and opinions of the things being tested. Even if you use the same subjects, their knowledge/opinions have now been affected by their experience in the earlier test. Yes it is. Considering you were not there, it amazes me how you can come to that conclusion. I don't have to be there when you turn on your teakettle to know what temperature the water boils at, either. Sighted tests aren't repeatable, in the scientific sense. If you think otherwise, then you don't understand what repeatability means scientifically. It's a bit more complicated than, "Well, we can do it again and get the same result." You've got to make sure, for example, that the first result can't influence the second--and that's impossible in a sighted test. You don't know the test subjects backgrounds, so you can not make that assertation on their prior knowledge. And yes, their knowledge and opinions are affected. They knew what they heard. And it is, again, repeatable. The virtue of blind tests is that they remove these factors from consideration. Thus, you can repeat a blind test, either with the same subjects or with different ones. I never claimed that my "anecdote evidentially" superior. That is your statement, not mine. I claim no superiority in testing, listening, measuring, anything. Just reporting the experience. That is all. And, unless you were there, you either accept or don't accept the results. But, you can not deny my personal experience or those that were there. No one denied your experience. Some questioned the significance of it, for very good reasons. There is no significance to it at all. Just passing on an experience that is repeatable with the equipment that I have. Not hard to do. If it has no significance, why are you reporting it to us? * You don't have to be "blinded" to hear a difference. Just listen and be honest. If you are ever in the LI, NY area, let me know, for it is repeatable. There is no contradiction except you choose not to accept my results because of *your* bias. Who determines that "blinded" is a better test? Actually, that would be experts in human perception, who can be found in the psychology department of any accredited university in the country. There are a few of those on Long Island. Look one up. I stated that if you or anyone is in the LI, NY area, I will repeat it. Sure you will. And it will still mean nothing. Wife is a psychologist. Don't have to look one up. Read it again. A clinical psychologist is NOT an expert in perception. But if she took at least one course in perception, however, she might be able to explain to you why we insist that blind tests are necessary to confirm claims of audible difference. It would be a place for you to start, at least. Again, everyone has a bias, even myself. But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear. You've just contradicted yourself. No I haven't. Sure you have. Your first sentence ("Again, everyone has a bias, even myself.") admits to a susceptibility to bias. Your second sentence ("But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear.") denies it. If you really WERE honest with yourself, you'd admit that you cannot be sure of what you heard, given the way you heard it. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:yOyfc.43763$_K3.216526@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote:  The favorite strawman. My proposed control test has absolutely nothing to  do with *my* beliefs, opinions, or preferences. it compares a more traditional audiophile way of evaluating components, but blinded, to the  same test conducted not blinded, and to your standard blind a-b test. The  only requirement is that the units under test do show *some* statistical  difference in audio characteristics when rated by a couple of dozen  audiophiles during sighted testing (using rating scales just as you do in  your car audio evaluations). This has absolutely nothing to do with me or  my preferences. Nor does it have much to do with good test design. Your overcomplex approach would--and could--prove nothing. There are ways to test your "theory," but this is not one of them. Why don't you contribute constructively rather than destructively. Why don't you point out exactly how "this is not one of them" and how this "does not have much to do with good test design" and then propose althernative ways to test my theory. Since I posited the test we have heard nothing but negatives from you. |
|
#249
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:yOyfc.43763$_K3.216526@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote: =C2 The favorite strawman.=C2 My proposed control test has absolutely= nothing to =C2 do with *my* beliefs, opinions, or preferences.=C2 it compares= a more traditional audiophile way of evaluating components, but blinded, to = the =C2 same test conducted not blinded, and to your standard blind a-b test.= =C2 The =C2 only requirement is that the units under test do show *some* statistical =C2 difference in audio characteristics when rated by a couple of doz= en =C2 audiophiles during sighted testing (using rating scales just as you d= o in =C2 your car audio=C2 evaluations).=C2 This has absolutely nothing to do = with me or =C2 my preferences. Nor does it have much to do with good test design. Your overcomplex approach would--and could--prove nothing. There are ways to test your "theory,"= but this is not one of them. =20 Why don't you contribute constructively rather than destructively. Why= don't you point out exactly how "this is not one of them" and how this = "does not have much to do with good test design" and then propose althernativ= e ways to test my theory. Since I posited the test we have heard nothing= but negatives from you. =20 Objectivists: Elephants do not fly. There is no validated sighting of=20 flying elephants. Sunjectivists: There is something wrong with the way we search for=20 flying elephants. Why don't you contribute constructively instead of=20 negatively? Why don't you come up with some experiments that can show=20 there are flying elephants? |
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
chung wrote in :
Objectivists: Elephants do not fly. There is no validated sighting of flying elephants. Sunjectivists: There is something wrong with the way we search for flying elephants. Why don't you contribute constructively instead of negatively? Why don't you come up with some experiments that can show there are flying elephants? My questions a If you can see it, is it real? If you can hear it, is it real? I mean, when we listen to music, we are enjoying music, not doing any scientific experiment, it doesn't matter what kind of components we are using, if we enjoy it, that is all that count. Such as, I love my Martin Logan, I love the look of it, I love the sound of it, but a lot of people think it is a piece of crap because the sound is too... "unnautral" as quoted. But that would not affect my listening pleasure. So, if I claim my speaker cables makes my music sound better; if I claim my power cord makes my music sound sweeter; if I claim my interconnect makes my music sound detailer; if I claim my green pen makes my music sound cleaner; I am right! Because that is how I feel, and nobody has the right to say, you are wrong or that is rubbish, something like that. I would like to thanks everyone that were feeding that many threads in this subject, but I think it is going to long, it is time to stop. That is a never ending debate because you are questioning somebody's own feeling. It could be wrong in your sense, but... forget it. And next time, when someone initial a cable question, could you please stop jump in and start all these? Period! Panzzi |
|
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:yOyfc.43763$_K3.216526@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote:  The favorite strawman. My proposed control test has absolutely nothing to  do with *my* beliefs, opinions, or preferences. it compares a more traditional audiophile way of evaluating components, but blinded, to the  same test conducted not blinded, and to your standard blind a-b test. The  only requirement is that the units under test do show *some* statistical  difference in audio characteristics when rated by a couple of dozen  audiophiles during sighted testing (using rating scales just as you do in  your car audio evaluations). This has absolutely nothing to do with me or  my preferences. Nor does it have much to do with good test design. Your overcomplex approach would--and could--prove nothing. There are ways to test your "theory," but this is not one of them. I think Harry has a good point, and I think it should be tested. Bob, I think you should give a good explanation about how it would be possible to test Harry's theory, and let's do it. Why keep arguing when progress can be made with all on board. I have an opinion as to what the results of such a test would be, but if it's a good test, it shouldn't make any difference what that opinion is. Good science doesn't depend on the attitude of the experimenter. Norm Strong |
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Bob Marcus wrote:
TonyP wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: TonyP wrote: Nowhere in my writing above, is Stewart's name mentioned. Nowhere. His results were his, mine are mine, and those that were there, agreed. They heard a difference. And it was obvious. Nothing subtle. Nothing that you would have to strain to hear. And.. it is repeatable. No, it is not. Sighted listening tests are NEVER repeatable. Ever. That's because you cannot repeat all the conditions of the test--in particular, the test subjects' exact prior knowledge and opinions of the things being tested. Even if you use the same subjects, their knowledge/opinions have now been affected by their experience in the earlier test. Yes it is. Considering you were not there, it amazes me how you can come to that conclusion. I don't have to be there when you turn on your teakettle to know what temperature the water boils at, either. Sighted tests aren't repeatable, in the scientific sense. If you think otherwise, then you don't understand what repeatability means scientifically. It's a bit more complicated than, "Well, we can do it again and get the same result." You've got to make sure, for example, that the first result can't influence the second--and that's impossible in a sighted test. Agreed. Bias of the first *could* influence the second test. You don't know the test subjects backgrounds, so you can not make that assertation on their prior knowledge. And yes, their knowledge and opinions are affected. They knew what they heard. And it is, again, repeatable. The virtue of blind tests is that they remove these factors from consideration. Thus, you can repeat a blind test, either with the same subjects or with different ones. I never claimed that my "anecdote evidentially" superior. That is your statement, not mine. I claim no superiority in testing, listening, measuring, anything. Just reporting the experience. That is all. And, unless you were there, you either accept or don't accept the results. But, you can not deny my personal experience or those that were there. No one denied your experience. Some questioned the significance of it, for very good reasons. There is no significance to it at all. Just passing on an experience that is repeatable with the equipment that I have. Not hard to do. If it has no significance, why are you reporting it to us? And why bother to reply? Everyone here has 'voiced' their opinions, I did mine. It's worth just as much as anyone else's here.... You don't have to be "blinded" to hear a difference. Just listen and be honest. If you are ever in the LI, NY area, let me know, for it is repeatable. There is no contradiction except you choose not to accept my results because of *your* bias. Who determines that "blinded" is a better test? Actually, that would be experts in human perception, who can be found in the psychology department of any accredited university in the country. There are a few of those on Long Island. Look one up. I stated that if you or anyone is in the LI, NY area, I will repeat it. Sure you will. And it will still mean nothing. To you, who has already made up your mind. Biased already. Wife is a psychologist. Don't have to look one up. Read it again. A clinical psychologist is NOT an expert in perception. But if she took at least one course in perception, however, she might be able to explain to you why we insist that blind tests are necessary to confirm claims of audible difference. It would be a place for you to start, at least. I read it again. You mentioned me looking up a psyhologist. I am married to one. And, if you are ever in LI, NY area, stop by and listen for yourself. It would be a place for you to start, at least. Again, everyone has a bias, even myself. But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear. You've just contradicted yourself. No I haven't. Sure you have. Your first sentence ("Again, everyone has a bias, even myself.") admits to a susceptibility to bias. Your second sentence ("But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear.") denies it. If you really WERE honest with yourself, you'd admit that you cannot be sure of what you heard, given the way you heard it. I am sure what I heard. The bias I had was that the cheap Onkyo would not stand a chance against the Carver or the Counterpoint. I was surprised that the Onkyo sounded better than the Carver and was almost indestinquishable from the Counterpoint. So, with my bias tilted towards the Carver and Counterpoint, I was stunned. And, being honest, I had to admit my surprise with the Onkyo. |
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Harry Lavo wrote:
Why don't you contribute constructively rather than destructively. Why don't you point out exactly how "this is not one of them" and how this "does not have much to do with good test design" and then propose althernative ways to test my theory. Since I posited the test we have heard nothing but negatives from you. I've criticized your "test" at length before, but here are the highlights: 1) You have no coherent, testable hypothesis. 2) You ask your subjects to do the impossible--namely, to conduct two independent subjective evaluations of the same equipment. Can't be done. Three's no way the first can't affect the second. As for the right way to test your theory (that long-term evaluative listening is more sensitive to sonic differences than an ABX test), a simple, double-blind preference test would serve. Wouldn't give you the results you want, but that's not my problem. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ |
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:33:57 GMT, TonyP
wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: TonyP wrote: Nowhere in my writing above, is Stewart's name mentioned. Nowhere. His results were his, mine are mine, and those that were there, agreed. They heard a difference. And it was obvious. Nothing subtle. Nothing that you would have to strain to hear. And.. it is repeatable. No, it is not. Sighted listening tests are NEVER repeatable. Ever. That's because you cannot repeat all the conditions of the test--in particular, the test subjects' exact prior knowledge and opinions of the things being tested. Even if you use the same subjects, their knowledge/opinions have now been affected by their experience in the earlier test. Yes it is. Considering you were not there, it amazes me how you can come to that conclusion. You don't know the test subjects backgrounds, so you can not make that assertation on their prior knowledge. And yes, their knowledge and opinions are affected. They knew what they heard. And it is, again, repeatable. It will absolutely *not* be repeatable, if done blind. That is the whole point, and has absolutely nothing to do with the character or experience of the listeners. The virtue of blind tests is that they remove these factors from consideration. Thus, you can repeat a blind test, either with the same subjects or with different ones. I never claimed that my "anecdote evidentially" superior. That is your statement, not mine. I claim no superiority in testing, listening, measuring, anything. Just reporting the experience. That is all. And, unless you were there, you either accept or don't accept the results. But, you can not deny my personal experience or those that were there. No one denied your experience. Some questioned the significance of it, for very good reasons. There is no significance to it at all. Just passing on an experience that is repeatable with the equipment that I have. Not hard to do. It will absolutely *not* be repeatable, if done blind. You don't have to be "blinded" to hear a difference. Just listen and be honest. If you are ever in the LI, NY area, let me know, for it is repeatable. There is no contradiction except you choose not to accept my results because of *your* bias. Who determines that "blinded" is a better test? Actually, that would be experts in human perception, who can be found in the psychology department of any accredited university in the country. There are a few of those on Long Island. Look one up. I stated that if you or anyone is in the LI, NY area, I will repeat it. Wife is a psychologist. Don't have to look one up. In that case, you should ask her advice on the reliability of sighted comparisons. She should be able to disabuse you of your notion that because 'everyone heard it', it must have had a physical existence. Again, everyone has a bias, even myself. But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear. You've just contradicted yourself. No I haven't. Yes you have - ask the wife! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#257
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 15 Apr 2004 04:14:08 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: chung wrote in message news:wL2fc.135909$K91.350047@attbi_s02... So it should be a slam dunk to tell them apart in a DBT, no? Just do one! You obviously have never heard a TA-N88B. This is a digital amp. It has a completely different kind of presentation, wholly without the kind of distortion that concentional transistors or tubes have. It does however have other distortions of its own, which *may* be audible. Note that no one is saying that it's impossible for you to have heard differences with this amp, just that you have no way of *knowing* that this was the case. I am completely astonished at such a response. If I plug the leads into this amp, and I hear astonishing clarity, and then switch back to my old amp, and the 'astonishing clarity' disapperas, what am I to conclude? That some genie has waved a magic wand right when I made the switch? It is almost certainly the case that you had no chance of differentiating 7 amplifiers, but you seem unable to accept this. None of the 7 amps sounded the same. Each had a recognizable sonic signature. In particular, the TA-N88B was so special that my non-audiophile friend said 'wow'. I note that you failed to address the question. Why are you so afraid to *try* a blind test, which by your claims should be easy for you? It is obviously superfluous.... I am happy with my system as it is and plan on no upgrades for the forseeable future. |
|
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
chung wrote:
Objectivists: Elephants do not fly. There is no validated sighting of flying elephants. Sunjectivists: There is something wrong with the way we search for flying elephants. Why don't you contribute constructively instead of negatively? Why don't you come up with some experiments that can show there are flying elephants? Engineer: Based upon the mass and aerodynamics of the Elephant, it would require a small jet engine to fly. |
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Panzzi wrote:
chung wrote in : Objectivists: Elephants do not fly. There is no validated sighting of flying elephants. Sunjectivists: There is something wrong with the way we search for flying elephants. Why don't you contribute constructively instead of negatively? Why don't you come up with some experiments that can show there are flying elephants? My questions a If you can see it, is it real? Not necessarily, Think about optical illusions, and mirages. If you can hear it, is it real? And there are aural illusions as well. When you listen to a mono recording on a stereo system, you hear the sound coming from between the two speakers. Is that real? Of course not. There's nothing there to produce the sound. Imaging and soundstage are illusions (and note that "illusion" isn't necessarily a bad thing!). So is the frequently demonstrated illusion that two literally identical sounds can seem different. I mean, when we listen to music, we are enjoying music, not doing any scientific experiment, it doesn't matter what kind of components we are using, if we enjoy it, that is all that count. Absolutely correct. Such as, I love my Martin Logan, I love the look of it, I love the sound of it, but a lot of people think it is a piece of crap because the sound is too... "unnautral" as quoted. But that would not affect my listening pleasure. It's your preference, and the most cold-hearted objectivist here would agree that your preference is sacrosanct. So, if I claim my speaker cables makes my music sound better; if I claim my power cord makes my music sound sweeter; if I claim my interconnect makes my music sound detailer; if I claim my green pen makes my music sound cleaner; I am right! Because that is how I feel, and nobody has the right to say, you are wrong or that is rubbish, something like that. So far, so good. Just don't try to take that any further, and you won't get an argument. If you think using a green pen makes your music sound better, then color away! But please don't try to claim, based on your experience, that green pens actually work. And please, please, don't quote some horse manure about green absorbing red light. That's when the conversation gets nasty. I would like to thanks everyone that were feeding that many threads in this subject, but I think it is going to long, it is time to stop. That is a never ending debate because you are questioning somebody's own feeling. It could be wrong in your sense, but... forget it. If you read the thread over, you'll see that we are not questioning people's "feelings." We are questioning the conclusions they draw from those feelings, and the pseudoscience they cite in defense of those conclusions. That may seem like a subtle decision, but it's a real one. As for the length of this thread, the moderators' patience has surprised me. Perhaps the presence of some new voices has led them to resist shutting the conversation down too soon. But I suspect the end is nigh... bob __________________________________________________ _______________ From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx |
|
#260
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Panzzi wrote:
chung wrote in : Objectivists: Elephants do not fly. There is no validated sighting of flying elephants. Sunjectivists: There is something wrong with the way we search for flying elephants. Why don't you contribute constructively instead of negatively? Why don't you come up with some experiments that can show there are flying elephants? My questions a If you can see it, is it real? If you can hear it, is it real? If you cannot hear it when you do not know the identity of what you are listening, how real is it to you? I mean, when we listen to music, we are enjoying music, not doing any scientific experiment, it doesn't matter what kind of components we are using, if we enjoy it, that is all that count. We have always said preference is personal and sacrosanct. No sense debating preferences. Such as, I love my Martin Logan, I love the look of it, I love the sound of it, but a lot of people think it is a piece of crap because the sound is too... "unnautral" as quoted. But that would not affect my listening pleasure. So, if I claim my speaker cables makes my music sound better; if I claim my power cord makes my music sound sweeter; if I claim my interconnect makes my music sound detailer; if I claim my green pen makes my music sound cleaner; I am right! Because that is how I feel, and nobody has the right to say, you are wrong or that is rubbish, something like that. Of course, anyone can say that you are imagining that you hear those differences, since those differences go away in controlled testing, and there is no physical basis to explain those differences. If you are saying that green pens do produce a different sound, of course someone can say it is rubbish. If someone claims that elephants can fly, do you think that nobody has the right to say that is rubbish? I would like to thanks everyone that were feeding that many threads in this subject, but I think it is going to long, it is time to stop. That is a never ending debate because you are questioning somebody's own feeling. You are not getting it. We are not questioning what you like, or even what you think you hear. We are telling you that if you are careful in your listening tests, you may not be able to tell those differences. Hence your preference may not be based on sound alone. That's all. It could be wrong in your sense, but... forget it. And next time, when someone initial a cable question, could you please stop jump in and start all these? Hmmm, it seems like you jumped in, too  .Period! Panzzi |
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
TonyP wrote:
snip * You don't have to be "blinded" to hear a difference. Just listen and be honest. If you are ever in the LI, NY area, let me know, for it is repeatable. There is no contradiction except you choose not to accept my results because of *your* bias. Who determines that "blinded" is a better test? Actually, that would be experts in human perception, who can be found in the psychology department of any accredited university in the country. There are a few of those on Long Island. Look one up. I stated that if you or anyone is in the LI, NY area, I will repeat it. Sure you will. And it will still mean nothing. To you, who has already made up your mind. Biased already. Yes, but not in the way you think. I am subject to the same illusions you are, and so I am also likely to hear differences just as you did, even if they are only imaginary. That's what makes sighted tests meaningless. But thanks for the invite. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp |
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:hGVfc.156347$JO3.94513@attbi_s04...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:33:57 GMT, TonyP wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: TonyP wrote: Nowhere in my writing above, is Stewart's name mentioned. Nowhere. His results were his, mine are mine, and those that were there, agreed. They heard a difference. And it was obvious. Nothing subtle. Nothing that you would have to strain to hear. And.. it is repeatable. No, it is not. Sighted listening tests are NEVER repeatable. Ever. That's because you cannot repeat all the conditions of the test--in particular, the test subjects' exact prior knowledge and opinions of the things being tested. Even if you use the same subjects, their knowledge/opinions have now been affected by their experience in the earlier test. Yes it is. Considering you were not there, it amazes me how you can come to that conclusion. You don't know the test subjects backgrounds, so you can not make that assertation on their prior knowledge. And yes, their knowledge and opinions are affected. They knew what they heard. And it is, again, repeatable. It will absolutely *not* be repeatable, if done blind. That is the whole point, and has absolutely nothing to do with the character or experience of the listeners. The virtue of blind tests is that they remove these factors from consideration. Thus, you can repeat a blind test, either with the same subjects or with different ones. I never claimed that my "anecdote evidentially" superior. That is your statement, not mine. I claim no superiority in testing, listening, measuring, anything. Just reporting the experience. That is all. And, unless you were there, you either accept or don't accept the results. But, you can not deny my personal experience or those that were there. No one denied your experience. Some questioned the significance of it, for very good reasons. There is no significance to it at all. Just passing on an experience that is repeatable with the equipment that I have. Not hard to do. It will absolutely *not* be repeatable, if done blind. You don't have to be "blinded" to hear a difference. Just listen and be honest. If you are ever in the LI, NY area, let me know, for it is repeatable. There is no contradiction except you choose not to accept my results because of *your* bias. Who determines that "blinded" is a better test? Actually, that would be experts in human perception, who can be found in the psychology department of any accredited university in the country. There are a few of those on Long Island. Look one up. I stated that if you or anyone is in the LI, NY area, I will repeat it. Wife is a psychologist. Don't have to look one up. In that case, you should ask her advice on the reliability of sighted comparisons. She should be able to disabuse you of your notion that because 'everyone heard it', it must have had a physical existence. Again, everyone has a bias, even myself. But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear. You've just contradicted yourself. No I haven't. Yes you have - ask the wife! Seems to me the conclusion to be drawn here is that this anecdotal "evidence" presented is valid only for those who actually experienced it. No generalization to anyone who was "not there", no proof of anything. Just an uninformed expression of an unscientific observation, completely valid for those who participated, and invalid for anyone else. Given that, one has to wonder what the point of the post is? Certainly not to convince anyone else of the "general" validity of the results, since they are, by definition "generally" invalid to anyone not a participant. auplater |
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:33:57 GMT, TonyP wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: TonyP wrote: Nowhere in my writing above, is Stewart's name mentioned. Nowhere. His results were his, mine are mine, and those that were there, agreed. They heard a difference. And it was obvious. Nothing subtle. Nothing that you would have to strain to hear. And.. it is repeatable. No, it is not. Sighted listening tests are NEVER repeatable. Ever. That's because you cannot repeat all the conditions of the test--in particular, the test subjects' exact prior knowledge and opinions of the things being tested. Even if you use the same subjects, their knowledge/opinions have now been affected by their experience in the earlier test. Yes it is. Considering you were not there, it amazes me how you can come to that conclusion. You don't know the test subjects backgrounds, so you can not make that assertation on their prior knowledge. And yes, their knowledge and opinions are affected. They knew what they heard. And it is, again, repeatable. It will absolutely *not* be repeatable, if done blind. That is the whole point, and has absolutely nothing to do with the character or experience of the listeners. Yes it would. Blindfolded or not. I would be able to tell when a different amp (of the ones that I own) are put into the chain, unless it was the Counterpoint/Onkyo switch. The virtue of blind tests is that they remove these factors from consideration. Thus, you can repeat a blind test, either with the same subjects or with different ones. I never claimed that my "anecdote evidentially" superior. That is your statement, not mine. I claim no superiority in testing, listening, measuring, anything. Just reporting the experience. That is all. And, unless you were there, you either accept or don't accept the results. But, you can not deny my personal experience or those that were there. No one denied your experience. Some questioned the significance of it, for very good reasons. There is no significance to it at all. Just passing on an experience that is repeatable with the equipment that I have. Not hard to do. It will absolutely *not* be repeatable, if done blind. It would absolutely *be* repeatable if done blind. You don't have to be "blinded" to hear a difference. Just listen and be honest. If you are ever in the LI, NY area, let me know, for it is repeatable. There is no contradiction except you choose not to accept my results because of *your* bias. Who determines that "blinded" is a better test? Actually, that would be experts in human perception, who can be found in the psychology department of any accredited university in the country. There are a few of those on Long Island. Look one up. I stated that if you or anyone is in the LI, NY area, I will repeat it. Wife is a psychologist. Don't have to look one up. In that case, you should ask her advice on the reliability of sighted comparisons. She should be able to disabuse you of your notion that because 'everyone heard it', it must have had a physical existence. Really. You are more than welcome to come and visit me in LI, NY for yourself and hear. Again, everyone has a bias, even myself. But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear. You've just contradicted yourself. No I haven't. Yes you have - ask the wife! No I haven't. You managed to snip the rest of the reply didn't you. "I am sure what I heard. The bias I had was that the cheap Onkyo would not stand a chance against the Carver or the Counterpoint. I was surprised that the Onkyo sounded better than the Carver and was almost indestinquishable from the Counterpoint. So, with my bias tilted towards the Carver and Counterpoint, I was stunned. And, being honest, I had to admit my surprise with the Onkyo." |
|
#264
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
The genie exists in the perception process, not in the amps. Your claim
to be an exception to listening tests showing results near the level of guessing first need to be established. This will test the proposition of the location of the genie. Your responce that you are not purchasing an amp soon is a red herring as you have repeatably asserted a more general theory about the "different" sound of amps. Do the qualifying test for location of a genie and then we can look at amps if your results are not near the level of gussing also and theat you are indeed an exception to listening tests. "I am completely astonished at such a response. If I plug the leads into this amp, and I hear astonishing clarity, and then switch back to my old amp, and the 'astonishing clarity' disapperas, what am I to conclude? That some genie has waved a magic wand right when I made the switch? " |
|
#265
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:KmVfc.4829$aM4.16670@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote: Why don't you contribute constructively rather than destructively. Why don't you point out exactly how "this is not one of them" and how this "does not have much to do with good test design" and then propose althernative ways to test my theory. Since I posited the test we have heard nothing but negatives from you. I've criticized your "test" at length before, but here are the highlights: 1) You have no coherent, testable hypothesis. Sure I do. It is that blinding per se, when done on an relaxed, longer-term, evaluative basis, is not likely to change the results of sighted listening done under the same conditions. But that the switch to blind a-b testing, or a-b-x testing will tend the results toward null because of ear-brain confusion. The control test is set up *exactly* to separate the two things. 2) You ask your subjects to do the impossible--namely, to conduct two independent subjective evaluations of the same equipment. Can't be done. Three's no way the first can't affect the second. Absolutely not, one evaluative sighted test and one evaluative blind test per subject...that's why several dozen subjects are required. Then a 16 trial run for each person using Tom's traditional A-B or A-B-X test. As for the right way to test your theory (that long-term evaluative listening is more sensitive to sonic differences than an ABX test), a simple, double-blind preference test would serve. Wouldn't give you the results you want, but that's not my problem. No it will not...it presumes the test is already validated. That's the purpose of this whole "control" test...to find out if it is valid and gives the same results...with the effects of "blinding" separated from the change in test technique. |
|
#266
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 15 Apr 2004 04:14:08 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: chung wrote in message news:wL2fc.135909$K91.350047@attbi_s02... So it should be a slam dunk to tell them apart in a DBT, no? Just do one! You obviously have never heard a TA-N88B. This is a digital amp. It has a completely different kind of presentation, wholly without the kind of distortion that concentional transistors or tubes have. It does however have other distortions of its own, which *may* be audible. Note that no one is saying that it's impossible for you to have heard differences with this amp, just that you have no way of *knowing* that this was the case. I am completely astonished at such a response. If I plug the leads into this amp, and I hear astonishing clarity, and then switch back to my old amp, and the 'astonishing clarity' disapperas, what am I to conclude? That some genie has waved a magic wand right when I made the switch? You still have not answered this. If the differences are so obvious, why not do a DBT to prove that the differences are real? I can raise the level by a few dB, and you will hear astonishing clarity. From any competent amp. It is almost certainly the case that you had no chance of differentiating 7 amplifiers, but you seem unable to accept this. None of the 7 amps sounded the same. Each had a recognizable sonic signature. In particular, the TA-N88B was so special that my non-audiophile friend said 'wow'. Well, anytime you tell someone you have a new amp, and play it a little lounder, your friend will say "wow". I note that you failed to address the question. Why are you so afraid to *try* a blind test, which by your claims should be easy for you? It is obviously superfluous.... So it will give positive results in controlled blind tests, no? Have someone help you conduct a level-matched blind test, and see if the differences are still there that someone deaf and blind can hear it. I am happy with my system as it is and plan on no upgrades for the forseeable future. Well, there is still that claim that you have failed to back up... |
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Panzzi wrote:
chung wrote in : Objectivists: Elephants do not fly. There is no validated sighting of flying elephants. Sunjectivists: There is something wrong with the way we search for flying elephants. Why don't you contribute constructively instead of negatively? Why don't you come up with some experiments that can show there are flying elephants? My questions a If you can see it, is it real? Not always. Cf optical illusions, hallucinations If you can hear it, is it real? Not always. Cf phantom switch comparisons, hallucinations So, if I claim my speaker cables makes my music sound better; It's no different from saying that using them makes you feel better. But any claims about changes it makes to the sound waves emanating from the speakers, are unsupported by this report. if I claim my power cord makes my music sound sweeter; if I claim my interconnect makes my music sound detailer; if I claim my green pen makes my music sound cleaner; I am right! Because that is how I feel, and nobody has the right to say, you are wrong or that is rubbish, something like that. If I claim that washing the headlights of my car makes it run faster, am I right? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Panzzi wrote:
chung wrote in : Objectivists: Elephants do not fly. There is no validated sighting of flying elephants. Sunjectivists: There is something wrong with the way we search for flying elephants. Why don't you contribute constructively instead of negatively? Why don't you come up with some experiments that can show there are flying elephants? My questions a If you can see it, is it real? In a dream you can see quite well, is it real? If you can hear it, is it real? Even less reliable, because the hearing is not so clear. It is a very diffuse sense. Even our biggest organ, the skin is more refined in its signals, cold/hot, strong/gentle touch, very clear. The hearing depends on the mood, on the situation, the environment, the company etc. We might love one music, but if we listen with a friend who doesn't like it, we cannot enjoy... I mean, when we listen to music, we are enjoying music, not doing any scientific experiment, it doesn't matter what kind of components we are using, if we enjoy it, that is all that count. Such as, I love my Martin Logan, I love the look of it, I love the sound of it, but a lot of people think it is a piece of crap because the sound is too... "unnautral" as quoted. But that would not affect my listening pleasure. So, if I claim my speaker cables makes my music sound better; if I claim my power cord makes my music sound sweeter; if I claim my interconnect makes my music sound detailer; if I claim my green pen makes my music sound cleaner; I am right! Because that is how I feel, and nobody has the right to say, you are wrong or that is rubbish, something like that. The reason people respond to this kind of hallucination with the truth is to plant the seed of doubt in the mind of the self-deceived. First he will defend his belief, but slowly he realizes he has been fooling himself. We all have been there and I'm thankful to those that told me the truth. It is not only so with the sound gear, but a general attitude in life to see things as they are and to drop as many prejudices as possible. I would like to thanks everyone that were feeding that many threads in this subject, but I think it is going to long, it is time to stop. That is a never ending debate because you are questioning somebody's own feeling. It could be wrong in your sense, but... forget it. And next time, when someone initial a cable question, could you please stop jump in and start all these? Period! Panzzi It will also help you to enter a higher level of understanding. And evolving your consciousness this way you can reach even higher hights of pleasure. We use only 5-10% of our brain capacity, so there is more to gain... -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Panzzi wrote in message ...
If you can hear it, is it real? If you hear the timpani between two stereo speakers, is the sound real and between the two speakers? If you put a pair of headphones on and hear a voice between your ears, is it real? If a schizophrenic hears voices, are they real? (indeed, there's evidence that the auditory portion of the brain is quite active in such cases: does that evidence make it even MORE real?) The answer in every one of these questions is, no, it is not "real" because there is no timpani located between the speakers, there's no one in the head speaking. You've just decided to buy into the rather cheap illusion of stereo, and there are some that are simply pointing out that it IS an illusion, and others seem to be very unconfortable with that fact, and want the rest of us to affirm the reality of their illusions. |
|
#270
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:35:05 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 15 Apr 2004 04:14:08 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: chung wrote in message news:wL2fc.135909$K91.350047@attbi_s02... So it should be a slam dunk to tell them apart in a DBT, no? Just do one! You obviously have never heard a TA-N88B. This is a digital amp. It has a completely different kind of presentation, wholly without the kind of distortion that concentional transistors or tubes have. It does however have other distortions of its own, which *may* be audible. Note that no one is saying that it's impossible for you to have heard differences with this amp, just that you have no way of *knowing* that this was the case. I am completely astonished at such a response. In that case, you must have completely ignored all the posts in this thread, aside from your own. It must be said that your continued intransigence makes that quite credible. If I plug the leads into this amp, and I hear astonishing clarity, and then switch back to my old amp, and the 'astonishing clarity' disapperas, what am I to conclude? That some genie has waved a magic wand right when I made the switch? You are to conclude that there *may* be a difference, or there may not. Further investigation is indicated, with bias controls in place. It is almost certainly the case that you had no chance of differentiating 7 amplifiers, but you seem unable to accept this. None of the 7 amps sounded the same. Each had a recognizable sonic signature. In particular, the TA-N88B was so special that my non-audiophile friend said 'wow'. This is mere conjecture on your part. We've heard all this before, many times. I note that you failed to address the question. Why are you so afraid to *try* a blind test, which by your claims should be easy for you? It is obviously superfluous.... Given that not one single person has ever been able to do what you claim in a blind test, that is a very arrogant statement. I am happy with my system as it is and plan on no upgrades for the forseeable future. I have no problem with that, but it's irrelevant to your extraordinary claim. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#271
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 04:56:33 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:KmVfc.4829$aM4.16670@attbi_s53... I've criticized your "test" at length before, but here are the highlights: 1) You have no coherent, testable hypothesis. Sure I do. It is that blinding per se, when done on an relaxed, longer-term, evaluative basis, is not likely to change the results of sighted listening done under the same conditions. But that the switch to blind a-b testing, or a-b-x testing will tend the results toward null because of ear-brain confusion. The control test is set up *exactly* to separate the two things. You are contradicting yourself, since there is absolutely nothing to prevent an ABX test being carried out on a relaxed, long-term basis. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#272
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
As for the right way to test your theory (that long-term
evaluative listening is more sensitive to sonic differences than an ABX test), a simple, double-blind preference test would serve. Wouldn't give you the results you want, but that's not my problem. No it will not...it presumes the test is already validated. That's the purpose of this whole "control" test...to find out if it is valid and gives the same results...with the effects of "blinding" separated from the change in test technique. There's almost no chance of any blind cable test giving the same results as a sighted one. What is at issue here is what conclusions can be drawn from that fact. My guess is that Harry will claim that such results show that blind testing is useless, since it gives null results. On the other hand, null results is exactly what I would expect, and what all blind cable tests have produced--so far. It would be a lot more fun to compare 2 speakers whose differences are great enough to give a reasonable expectation of interesting results when tested blind. I would suggest speakers of about the same size and type of design, but wildly different prices and presumed quality. The comparison should be done blind first, then sighted. Evaluations should be written, using language understandable by the public at large, and with no communication between different listeners. Along with the evaluation, there should be an opportunity to guess the MSRP; usually good for a laugh. By eliminating quick switching we make the test simpler to run and more satisfactory to the subjective audiophiles in the group. Norm Strong |
|
#273
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:KmVfc.4829$aM4.16670@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote: Why don't you contribute constructively rather than destructively.* Why don't you point out exactly how "this is not one of them" and how this "does not have much to do with good test design" and then propose althernative ways to test my theory.* Since I posited the test we have heard nothing but negatives from you. I've criticized your "test" at length before, but here are the highlights: 1) You have no coherent, testable hypothesis. Sure I do.* It is that blinding per se, when done on an relaxed, longer-term, evaluative basis, is not likely to change the results of sighted listening done under the same conditions.* But that the switch to blind a-b testing, or a-b-x testing will tend the results toward null because of ear-brain confusion.* The control test is set up *exactly* to separate the two things. Well, no, it's far too complex to do this job. If you want to compare two tests, with only sightedness as the variable, then you certainly don't need THREE tests. A bigger problem is that there is no way statistically to compare the multiplicity of results you would get using the evaluation approach you propose. That's the virtue of the preference test I proposed--there are only two possible answers. Whereas, if you ask audiophiles to "evaluate" components based on, say, ten either-or criteria (a la Oohashi, who I believe is your model here), each subject has 1,024 possible answers. How do you tell whether his sighted answers match his blind answers? There's no meaningful statistical standard, nor is there any way of determining--without a huge amount of research--whether the criteria are themselves independent, which would be another requirement. 2) You ask your subjects to do the impossible--namely, to conduct two independent subjective evaluations of the same equipment. Can't be done. Three's no way the first can't affect the second. Absolutely not, one evaluative sighted test and one evaluative blind test per subject...that's why several dozen subjects are required.* Can't be done. Subjects will recall their sighted evaluations when they do their blind ones, so instead of the latter being an independent evaluation, all they'll be doing is trying to match their previous evaluations to the two components they are listening to now. The other advantage of my proposed preference test is that it leaves the subject free to listen however he wants, just as your theory ought to demand. Whereas you want to impose an artificial "scorecard evaluation," which may be nothing like that subject's actual practice. Then a 16 trial run for each person using Tom's traditional A-B or A-B-X test. As I said above, if your goal is to compare sighted to blind evaluative approaches, this step is unnecessary. As for the right way to test your theory (that long-term evaluative listening is more sensitive to sonic differences than an ABX test), a simple, double-blind preference test would serve. Wouldn't give you the results you want, but that's not my problem. No it will not...it presumes the test is already validated.* That's the purpose of this whole "control" test...to find out if it is valid and gives the same results...with the effects of "blinding" separated from the change in test technique. I think you'll see that my longer proposal does exactly what you ask--it compares sighted results to blind results using exactly the same listening method, to see if they give the same results. And, unlike you, I have defined statistically what "same" means. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ |
|
#274
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"TonyP" wrote in message
news:fN2gc.158878$JO3.96006@attbi_s04... *snip* Yes it is. Considering you were not there, it amazes me how you can come to that conclusion. You don't know the test subjects backgrounds, so you can not make that assertation on their prior knowledge. And yes, their knowledge and opinions are affected. They knew what they heard. And it is, again, repeatable. It will absolutely *not* be repeatable, if done blind. That is the whole point, and has absolutely nothing to do with the character or experience of the listeners. Yes it would. Blindfolded or not. I would be able to tell when a different amp (of the ones that I own) are put into the chain, unless it was the Counterpoint/Onkyo switch. You'll never know unless you try it blindfolded. *snip* There is no significance to it at all. Just passing on an experience that is repeatable with the equipment that I have. Not hard to do. It will absolutely *not* be repeatable, if done blind. It would absolutely *be* repeatable if done blind. Since no one has yet been able to repeat such results during a blind test, this would be most interesting to observe. *snip* Again, everyone has a bias, even myself. But, I am honest with what *I* hear, or don't hear. You've just contradicted yourself. No I haven't. Yes you have - ask the wife! No I haven't. You managed to snip the rest of the reply didn't you. "I am sure what I heard. The bias I had was that the cheap Onkyo would not stand a chance against the Carver or the Counterpoint. I was surprised that the Onkyo sounded better than the Carver and was almost indestinquishable from the Counterpoint. So, with my bias tilted towards the Carver and Counterpoint, I was stunned. And, being honest, I had to admit my surprise with the Onkyo." The bias that you had was a clear presupposition that the amps would sound different, and guess what? They did when you could see them. It's entirely possible, and highly likely, in fact that such differences would disappear completely under blind listening conditions. You should try it to see. |
|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:ECegc.151212$gA5.1814292@attbi_s03... On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 04:56:33 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:KmVfc.4829$aM4.16670@attbi_s53... I've criticized your "test" at length before, but here are the highlights: 1) You have no coherent, testable hypothesis. Sure I do. It is that blinding per se, when done on an relaxed, longer-term, evaluative basis, is not likely to change the results of sighted listening done under the same conditions. But that the switch to blind a-b testing, or a-b-x testing will tend the results toward null because of ear-brain confusion. The control test is set up *exactly* to separate the two things. You are contradicting yourself, since there is absolutely nothing to prevent an ABX test being carried out on a relaxed, long-term basis. But as a practical matter they are not. In fact Tom purposely restricts his evaluation disk to 20 second snippets. Also, they are "comparison" tests rather than evaluative tests, which tend to put the emphasis on switching, not on listening in depth. |
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
chung wrote in message news:hO2gc.148131$gA5.1797802@attbi_s03...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 15 Apr 2004 04:14:08 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: chung wrote in message news:wL2fc.135909$K91.350047@attbi_s02... So it should be a slam dunk to tell them apart in a DBT, no? Just do one! You obviously have never heard a TA-N88B. This is a digital amp. It has a completely different kind of presentation, wholly without the kind of distortion that concentional transistors or tubes have. It does however have other distortions of its own, which *may* be audible. Note that no one is saying that it's impossible for you to have heard differences with this amp, just that you have no way of *knowing* that this was the case. I am completely astonished at such a response. If I plug the leads into this amp, and I hear astonishing clarity, and then switch back to my old amp, and the 'astonishing clarity' disapperas, what am I to conclude? That some genie has waved a magic wand right when I made the switch? You still have not answered this. If the differences are so obvious, why not do a DBT to prove that the differences are real? There is nothing to be gained, that's why! The differences are so dramatic that it is not worth my time..... I can raise the level by a few dB, and you will hear astonishing clarity. From any competent amp. It is almost certainly the case that you had no chance of differentiating 7 amplifiers, but you seem unable to accept this. None of the 7 amps sounded the same. Each had a recognizable sonic signature. In particular, the TA-N88B was so special that my non-audiophile friend said 'wow'. Well, anytime you tell someone you have a new amp, and play it a little lounder, your friend will say "wow". That's not the case. You were not there. I reapeat and insist that the Sony TA-N88B amp is so much clearer than other amps that anyone who spends more than 3 seconds listening will notice it. |
|
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
I submitted this a few days ago but got no response from the moderators.
I tried a test myself. I have two Marantz CD players - a 63 and a 67. I have the 63 sitting on an invalid "donut" for isolation and the digital output goes through a Canare digital cable to a DIP jitter buster. From there via a high quality digital cable to a MSB link D-A converter. This is connected to my Apt-Holman preamp using Kimber PBJ cable. The preamp is connected to an Apt 1 power amp through Kimber PBJ cable. The other Marantz (67) is connected to another input on the preamp using generic RCA wires. I took a CD that I had two copies of and synced and level matched them. I listened - switching between the two setups using both earphones (AKG) and speakers (DBX Soundfield ones). I could not hear any difference of any kind. I wish now that instead of spending money on the extra components and expensive cables, I had used it to buy more CDs. I think that all this bickering about cables is silly. Just blowing your nose too hard changes the sound more than fancy wire. -MIKE |
|
#280
|
|||
|
|||
|
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Harry Lavo wrote:
Then you haven't been paying attention. Here is what I have said (repeatedly) in a nutshell. 1) The main problem I have with double-blind is its tremendous impracticality in actual use in the home. 2) The main problem I have with Tom's DBT a-b and a-b-x tests is that they force the ear-brain into a short-term comparative mode, versus the long term evaluative mode used by audiophiles (listen at several times under several conditions to each unit, sometimes compare rapidly to listen to a specific effect, then go back to evaluative listening, etc.). I posit that this is allows the right brain as well as the left brain to "weigh in". I believe DBT comparisons are okay *if you know what specific sonic artifac you are listening for". Not for open ended testing where you don't know going in what you are listening for. This, I posit, is when confusion sets in and all you can hear are obvious volume or frequency response differences. But this purely hypothetical 'problem' , which has no *positive* evidence in its support, is in any case of NO CONSEQUENCE if one, such as yourself, has *already* identified two components as being different, under *your* preferred, sighted, comparative mode -- which as you say, is the *typical* comparative mode for audiophiles. In this case, one has already identified and desribed to oneself, the characteristic 'sound' of each component. One 'knows' what to listen for. *All* that is required at this point, therefore, is to present the two components under blinded conditions, to that person. If they have 'memorized' a real difference, then there should be no problem whatever in identifyimg it under such conditions. If you insist that the blind comparison be 'long term' and involve 'ratings' or whatever, fine. Just make sure it's blind. Tests like the ones Tom Nousaine conducted on Steve Zipser involved a listener who *already* claimed to 'know' the difference between two components, from sighted experience. He 'knew' what to listen for. He 'knew' what his preferred amplifier sounded like. Or so he thought. Given your dogged advocacy of a so far entirely speculative set of psychological/cognitive problems with 'forced' comparison, I propose again that you offer *yourself*, and a pair of components you ALREADY believe sound different, from your experience with them, as a test case for YOUR hypotheses. From your posts it appears there must be at least two cables or amps you already have evaluated, and believe to sound different. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Hearing aids and music | High End Audio | |||
| Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
| Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
| hearing loss info | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
