Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:51:42 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46:30 PM UTC-8, wrote= :=20 On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:37:24 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: I still believe that the only way to do a DBT/ABX of something as=20 subtly different as amplifiers should be done with each amp being=20 auditioned for as much as a half hour before switching to the other= =20 amp. Use the same cuts from test CDs for each session, played in=20 the same order. Of course careful level matching and strict double blindness must still be maintained. I suspect that such a test might uncover differences that short term, instantaneous switching doesn't reveal. =20 As long as I've been reading RAHE (which is going on 15 years, I think)= , I've seen this belief expressed. One of these believers ought to try it = sometime. Perhaps they will teach the world of psychoacoustics something. (= I am not holding my breath.) =20 I have tried it.=20 No, you haven't, not with enough rigor to pass the laugh test. It's clear f= rom your posts that you don't have a clear grasp of what is required to con= duct a scientifically valid DBT. And if there are any differences, one has a much better=20 chance of uncovering them if one really listens to the devices being=20 auditioned. You can't do that when two devices are being swapped=20 out for each other every few seconds (or even every couple of minutes).= =20 There's solid science that says the opposite is true--comparing brief snipp= ets of sound and switching quickly between them actually makes the test mor= e sensitive to differences, not less. Sean Olive's speaker preference tests= for Harman use per-speaker presentations measured in seconds, not minutes.= If longer presentations worked better, it would be in Harman's economic in= terest to use them. As long as the auditions are truly double-blind, and the levels are caref= ully=20 matched to less than a dB, And here is clear evidence that you don't know how to do a DBT. A 1 dB diff= erence is way too large. Try 0.1 dB. Also required is a forced-choice forma= t and a statistically significant result over a meaningful number of trials= .. bob |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:51:42 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46:30 PM UTC-8, wro= te:=20 =20 On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:37:24 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 I still believe that the only way to do a DBT/ABX of something as= =20 =20 subtly different as amplifiers should be done with each amp being= =20 =20 auditioned for as much as a half hour before switching to the other= =20 =20 amp. Use the same cuts from test CDs for each session, played in=20 =20 the same order. Of course careful level matching and strict double =20 blindness must still be maintained. I suspect that such a test migh= t =20 uncover differences that short term, instantaneous switching doesn'= t =20 reveal. =20 =20 =20 As long as I've been reading RAHE (which is going on 15 years, I thin= k), I've seen this belief expressed. One of these believers ought to try i= t sometime. Perhaps they will teach the world of psychoacoustics something.= (I am not holding my breath.) =20 =20 =20 I have tried it.=20 =20 =20 =20 No, you haven't, not with enough rigor to pass the laugh test. That's amusing. Anytime you strict "objectivists" hear of a result=20 that goes against your dogma, it's always "The test was not=20 conducted properly" Or "the test wasn't rigorous enough." I'll say one thing. It certainly keeps you fellows safe and sound. It's clear from your posts that you don't have a clear grasp of what is re= quired to conduct a scientifically valid DBT. Well, then Bob. When you get finished laughing at me, why don't enlighten u= s=20 as to the correct methodology for conducting scientifically valid audio DBT= s?=20 And if there are any differences, one has a much better=20 =20 chance of uncovering them if one really listens to the devices being=20 =20 auditioned. You can't do that when two devices are being swapped=20 =20 out for each other every few seconds (or even every couple of minutes).= =20 =20 =20 =20 There's solid science that says the opposite is true--comparing brief sni= ppets of sound and switching quickly between them actually makes the test m= ore sensitive to differences, not less. Sean Olive's speaker preference tes= ts for Harman use per-speaker presentations measured in seconds, not minute= s. If longer presentations worked better, it would be in Harman's economic = interest to use them. Here is just another reason why I think that DBTs for audio are a flawed=20 methodology. How, for instance, are you going to tell whether one DAC resolves image specificity better than another with short snippets? What if the "snippets" are studio produced with multi-miked and multi- channel performances that HAVE NO image specificity? How is switching between two DACs, for instance every couple of seconds going to show=20 the imaging characteristics of the DUTs, even if that info is present in th= e program material? It can't. No wonder Scientifically valid DBTs so often return a null result with the finding that everything sounds alike. Thanks for confirming my doubts, Bob.=20 =20 =20 =20 As long as the auditions are truly double-blind, and the levels are car= efully=20 =20 matched to less than a dB, =20 =20 =20 And here is clear evidence that you don't know how to do a DBT. A 1 dB di= fference is way too large. Try 0.1 dB. Also required is a forced-choice for= mat and a statistically significant result over a meaningful number of tria= ls. =20 =20 =20 bob Would you mind telling me EXACTLY how anybody is going to match=20 levels to 1/10th of a dB? Even the most expensive audio equipment=20 doesn't have potentiometers on them that have that kind of resolution,=20 because audio doesn't need that kind of resolution. It can be done to less than one dB easily enough, maybe even 1/2 of a dB is doable, but 1/10th? That would require aerospace-spec 10-turn pots, and they're not exactly=20 cheap, or all that easy to source. And some here say that DBTs are easy to set-up. Gimme a break. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:51=A0am, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46:30 PM UTC-8, wro= te: =20 On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:37:24 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 I still believe that the only way to do a DBT/ABX of something as =20 =20 subtly different as amplifiers should be done with each amp being =20 =20 auditioned for as much as a half hour before switching to the other =20 =20 amp. Use the same cuts from test CDs for each session, played in =20 =20 the same order. Of course careful level matching and strict double =20 =20 blindness must still be maintained. I suspect that such a test migh= t =20 =20 uncover differences that short term, instantaneous switching doesn'= t =20 =20 reveal. =20 =20 As long as I've been reading RAHE (which is going on 15 years, I thin= k), I've seen this belief expressed. =A0One of these believers ought to try= it sometime. Perhaps they will teach the world of psychoacoustics somethin= g. (I am not holding my breath.) =20 =20 bob =20 =20 I have tried it. And if there are any differences, one has a much bette= r =20 chance of uncovering them if one really listens to the devices being =20 auditioned. You can't do that when two devices are being swapped =20 out for each other every few seconds (or even every couple of minutes). =20 As long as the auditions are truly double-blind, and the levels are car= efully =20 matched to less than a dB, and the same varied demonstration material i= s =20 used in each instance, they are still true DBTs. =20 =20 =20 I agree. Selection of the source... A, B, or X should be under =20 subject control and for as long as the subject desires with whatever =20 material the subject desires before making a choice. My own choice =20 of material would not be limited to music. It masks rather than =20 illuminates differences. I hadn't considered that. Yeah, I think a selection of drums or gun shots,= =20 and other kinds of day-to-day sounds would be useful as part of the mix of test material. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:26:02 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... I still believe that the only way to do a DBT/ABX of something as subtly different as amplifiers should be done with each amp being auditioned for as much as a half hour before switching to the other amp. Been there, done that. Use the same cuts from test CDs for each session, played in the same order. Been there, done that. Of course careful level matching and strict double- blindness must still be maintained. Been there, done that. I suspect that such a test might uncover differences that short term, instantaneous switching doesn't reveal. Didn't happen. So much for this round of hoops and sticks. ;-) But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test this way? This appears to be a terribly unbalanced discussion. On the one side we seem to have little but denial and speculation. On the other side we have over 35 years of hands-on experience with highly sophisticated real world testing of dozens of amplifiers and equal numbers of DACs, signal processors and players, some of it documented in the largest circulation consumer and professional audio publications around. And some of these Large circulation consumer professional audio publications do note differences in sound. So, here we are at an impasse. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:38:05 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
That's amusing. Anytime you strict "objectivists" hear of a result that goes against your dogma, it's always "The test was not conducted properly" Or "the test wasn't rigorous enough." I'll say one thing. It certainly keeps you fellows safe and sound. Results? What results? I haven't seen any results. All I've seen is one unsupported claim by an anonymous Usenet poster who doesn't even know how to match levels. Here is just another reason why I think that DBTs for audio are a flawed methodology. How, for instance, are you going to tell whether one DAC resolves image specificity better than another with short snippets? A DAC does not "resolve image specificity." A DAC puts out two separate channels of audio with virtually no crosstalk between them. These two channels do not meaningfully interact in any way until sound emerges from speakers. That's how an audio system works. What if the "snippets" are studio produced with multi-miked and multi- channel performances that HAVE NO image specificity? How is switching between two DACs, for instance every couple of seconds going to show the imaging characteristics of the DUTs, even if that info is present in the program material? It can't. If that's what you think, you're free to do a DBT any way you like. But just do it (with at least one skeptical witness, please). Imagining what you think you'll hear doesn't count. Would you mind telling me EXACTLY how anybody is going to match levels to 1/10th of a dB? Even the most expensive audio equipment doesn't have potentiometers on them that have that kind of resolution, because audio doesn't need that kind of resolution. It can be done to less than one dB easily enough, maybe even 1/2 of a dB is doable, but 1/10th? That would require aerospace-spec 10-turn pots, and they're not exactly cheap, or all that easy to source. And some here say that DBTs are easy to set-up. Gimme a break. A decent voltmeter should be all you need. bob |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:38:45 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hea= r=20 these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test= =20 this way?=20 =20 Sure it's possible for one test subject. But my original post lists numerou= s tests conducted by different groups with numerous subjects, all of which = show the same general inability to hear differences among DACs.=20 Now, maybe everyone who's ever conducted a DBT for publication has stacked = his test panel with skeptics. But if that's the case, it should have been e= asy for other, more "enlightened" publications to conduct their own DBTs, w= ith their own true believers, and blow the existing science out of the wate= r. Why haven't they done that? I'll tell you why: Because they know as well as I do that the results would= expose their reviewers as frauds and put them out of business. bob |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test this way? Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject came up? The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not 100s or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because they were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, wrote: There's solid science that says the opposite is true--comparing brief snippets of sound and switching quickly between them actually makes the test more sensitive to differences, not less. Sean Olive's speaker preference tests for Harman use per-speaker presentations measured in seconds, not minutes. If longer presentations worked better, it would be in Harman's economic interest to use them. Here is just another reason why I think that DBTs for audio are a flawed methodology. What is flawed is pretending that ABX is only done with short snippets when the opposite has been published in places like Audio magazine and said many times on this forum. How, for instance, are you going to tell whetherne DAC resolves image specificity better than another with short snippets? There the thread goes downhill again, based on posts pretending that the author is smarter than science. Yawn. I get very tired of correcting the same egregious and illogical mistakes, every time the topic comes up. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:38:45 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 =20 But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to h= ear=20 =20 these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test= =20 =20 this way?=20 =20 =20 =20 Sure it's possible for one test subject. But my original post lists numer= ous tests conducted by different groups with numerous subjects, all of whic= h show the same general inability to hear differences among DACs.=20 I don't remember addressing you with that comment, but if you insist on=20 taking it personally, I have no real objection. OTOH, if those tests were= =20 carried out in the way that proposed as "the right way", then I don't doubt that all the subjects "show the same inability to hear differences among DA= Cs."=20 =20 Now, maybe everyone who's ever conducted a DBT for publication has stacke= d his test panel with skeptics. But if that's the case, it should have been= easy for other, more "enlightened" publications to conduct their own DBTs,= with their own true believers, and blow the existing science out of the wa= ter. Why haven't they done that? Can't say. What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt, as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating audio components.=20 I'll tell you why: Because they know as well as I do that the results wou= ld expose their reviewers as frauds and put them out of business. You are more than welcome to hold fast to that belief. Personally, I think= =20 the methodology is wrong. And you can quote chapter and verse of=20 Psychoacoustical dogma and statistical analysis 'till the end of time and it won't change my mind. In fact I agree that using the type of DBT that you and some others have been talking about, is almost surely=20 going to return a null result. By definition and design it HAS TO return that result for a variety of reasons. =20 |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test this way? Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject came up? The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not 100s or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because they were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied. Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:29:56 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
I don't remember addressing you with that comment, but if you insist on taking it personally, I have no real objection. I wasn't taking it personally. I was just pointing out how wrong you were. Can't say. What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt, as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating audio components. And we all know why: Those tests expose them as the frauds they are. And you can quote chapter and verse of Psychoacoustical dogma and statistical analysis 'till the end of time and it won't change my mind. Kinda sums it all up right there. bob |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:09:54 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, wrote: There's solid science that says the opposite is true--comparing brief snippets of sound and switching quickly between them actually makes the test more sensitive to differences, not less. Sean Olive's speaker preference tests for Harman use per-speaker presentations measured in seconds, not minutes. If longer presentations worked better, it would be in Harman's economic interest to use them. Here is just another reason why I think that DBTs for audio are a flawed methodology. What is flawed is pretending that ABX is only done with short snippets when the opposite has been published in places like Audio magazine and said many times on this forum. How, for instance, are you going to tell whetherne DAC resolves image specificity better than another with short snippets? There the thread goes downhill again, based on posts pretending that the author is smarter than science. Yawn. I get very tired of correcting the same egregious and illogical mistakes, every time the topic comes up. Fine, then don't answer such threads. But it was NAB who INSISTED that DBTs are best served by short snipits lasting only a few seconds. This debate was aimed at him, not you. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt, as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating audio components. Based on the comments I've seen on RAHE the last 2 or so weeks, up-to-date knowlege about the current state of DBT testing methodologies is uncommon. The first big tipoff is all of the exclusive references to ABX, which in 2012 has nothing like an exclusive grip on the world of subjective testing. In fact ABX was obsoleted for most of the kinds of testing that most audio practitioners want to do on the day it was invented. And I invented it! ;-) Seriously, though. Here is what looks like a pretty good paper on the topic. Looks like it is more than a decade old so no, it doesn't have the latest greatest wisdom, but it looks pretty good compared to what I've seen on RAHE lately. Hope it dispells the rapidly-gathering fog: http://telos-systems.com/techtalk/00222.pdf |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On 12/22/2012 8:30 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test this way? Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject came up? The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not 100s or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because they were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied. Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons. So it's your position that DBT's have never had positive results for difference? Really? Keith |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:30:12 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons. But they do give positive results. My OP noted several. bob |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test this way? Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject came up? The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not 100s or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because they were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied. Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons. The above statement shows exactly the kind of unthinking, unyielding bias that we're dealing with here. Absolutely nothing has been said about the details of the tests in question, yet they have been disqualified apparently simply because they exist. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:18:46 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:29:56 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: I don't remember addressing you with that comment, but if you insist on taking it personally, I have no real objection. I wasn't taking it personally. I was just pointing out how wrong you were. I beg to differ, If you didn't take it personally, you wouldn't have answered it. And to set the record straight, you were pointing out how wrong YOU believe me to be. I.E. you were confusing opinion with fact. They aren't always the same thing as much as we would like for them to be. Can't say. What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt, as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating audio components. And we all know why: Those tests expose them as the frauds they are. Your opinion. You are entitled to it, but your opinion as to why many reviewers both here and abroad doubt the efficacy of DBT for audio is quite incorrect. And you can quote chapter and verse of Psychoacoustical dogma and statistical analysis 'till the end of time and it won't change my mind. Kinda sums it all up right there. Yes it does. It's going to take more than quotes from adherents to a methodology that I believe is wrong-headed to make me a believer in this form of audio testing. See, no one has proven to me that DBT testing of audio equipment covers all of the bases. In fact, I'm more than reasonably sure that it doesn't. There are things that a few seconds of listening before switching to the alternate DUT will rarely, if ever, uncover. For instance, Many characteristics also require the RIGHT kind of source material. Like I said before, you'll not uncover differences in dimensionality and image specificity (one of the main differences that I find in DACs) using source material that was multi-miked in a studio using 8, 16, 32, and more channels. Because such studio recordings don't have ANY image specificity. They can't. They aren't real stereo. They are multi-channel mono with the instruments pan-potted into position. Do any kind of listening test with such recordings (rock, "pop", most jazz, some classical [Columbia recordings made in the late sixties through the '80's, for instance]), and there is NO real soundstage, so that aspect of a DAC's performance will simply be ignored by the testing procedure, whatever that listening test procedure might be. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:02:35 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test this way? Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject came up? The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not 100s or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because they were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied. Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons. The above statement shows exactly the kind of unthinking, unyielding bias that we're dealing with here. Does the irony of your response elude you? Absolutely nothing has been said about the details of the tests in question, yet they have been disqualified apparently simply because they exist. No they've been disqualified because NAB said that the only way to conduct such a test is to play but a few seconds of a selection before switching to the other DUT where only a few seconds are played through it before switching back to the first DUT again. Specifically, what I said was that If this is how "scientifically correct" DBTs are always conducted, then its no wonder that they return a verdict of there being no differences between DACs (or anything else for that matter). |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:02:18 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 12/22/2012 8:30 AM, Audio_Empire wrote: On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... So it's your position that DBT's have never had positive results for difference? Really? To hear some of these "strict objectivists" tell the story they've never had a positive result. Their dogma is that all modern amps sound the same, and all DACs sound exactly the same (unless they are incompetently designed) and by extension all CD players as well. I KNOW that not all DBTs produce a negative result. I've been party to several. But anytime that I bring that up, the "usual suspects" chime in with such inevitable responses as "the test was not rigorous enough", or "You don't under -stand proper DBT methodology." Etc. IOW, in order to satisfy some of these folks, the only DBT result that they will accept is a negative result. They won't argue with that. |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:02:23 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:30:12 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons. But they do give positive results. My OP noted several. Sorry Bob, I must've missed that post somehow. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... On Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:09:54 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote: I get very tired of correcting the same egregious and illogical mistakes, every time the topic comes up. Fine, then don't answer such threads. That would suit those who keep making the same old, same old egregious and illogical mistakes because then they would go uncorrected. But it was NAB who INSISTED that DBTs are best served by short snipits lasting only a few seconds. And NAB is right. Established science says so and practical experiences showed it to be true for decades before that. This debate was aimed at him, not you. Like I said, those of us are up with our science and have decades of practical experience are stuck dealing with correcting the same errors every time the issues come up. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Monday, December 24, 2012 11:13:23 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
And to set the record straight, you were pointing out how wrong YOU belie= ve=20 me to be. I.E. you were confusing opinion with fact.=20 You are not wrong because I say so. You are wrong because all of the availa= ble facts (as summarized in the first post in this thread), disagree with y= ou. When you opine one thing, and all available facts contradict you, then = you are wrong. bob P.S.: To save me replying to another post of yours, please go back and read= the first post in this thread, so you will know what I am talking about. I= n it you will find not only a catalog of a wide range of DBTs, but also a c= itation from a leading monograph in the field of psychoacoustics. When you = hold unsupported beliefs contradicted by the relevant scientific field as r= eflected in its basic textbooks, you are wrong. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Monday, December 24, 2012 11:13:50 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
No they've been disqualified because NAB said that the only way to conduc= t such a test is to play but a few seconds of a selection before switching = to the other DUT where only a few seconds are played through it before switc= hing back to the first DUT again. No, I have never said that. What I said was that if you wanted a DBT to be = as sensitive to differences as possible, that's the way you should do it. T= hat's scientifically accepted. Of course, you're perfectly free to conduct your DBTs any way you like. If = you use longer passages without immediate switching, and you get positive r= esults with all appropriate controls in place (double-blind, level-matched,= statistical significance), then I and others will accept them as correct.= =20 But if you do that, then I guarantee we'll be able to get the same positive= results using a quick-switching methodology! BTW, here's a good article on the fallacy of long-term listening tests: http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf bob |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... Yes it does. It's going to take more than quotes from adherents to a methodology that I believe is wrong-headed to make me a believer in this form of audio testing. That appears to be mission impossible. You seem to have already taken the position that everything we know about the thresholds of hearing for the various kinds of audible differences are wrong and/or that there are other explanations for audible differences. See, no one has proven to me that DBT testing of audio equipment covers all of the bases. IOW, according to you DBT has to be perfect but we already know that nothing is perfect. In fact, I'm more than reasonably sure that it doesn't. In your own eyes, yes. There are things that a few seconds of listening before switching to the alternate DUT will rarely, if ever, uncover. Says you and forget about sceince. For instance, Many characteristics also require the RIGHT kind of source material. Finding the right few seconds of program material is required, and we've known that for about 4 decades. Like I said before, you'll not uncover differences in dimensionality and image specificity (one of the main differences that I find in DACs) Interesting that your all-important crteria is hearing differences among DACs when science says that even mid-grade DACs are overkill for audio. using source material that was multi-miked in a studio using 8, 16, 32, and more channels. Because such studio recordings don't have ANY image specificity. Ignores all the DBTs that have been done with minimal-miced music, which are numerous. It just goes on and on... |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Dec 24 2012, 12:16=A0pm, wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2012 11:13:50 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: No they've been disqualified because NAB said that the only way to cond= uct such a test is to play but a few seconds of a selection before switchin= g to the other DUT where only a few seconds are played through it before swi= tching back to the first DUT again. No, I have never said that. What I said was that if you wanted a DBT to b= e as sensitive to differences as possible, that's the way you should do it.= That's scientifically accepted. Of course, you're perfectly free to conduct your DBTs any way you like. I= f you use longer passages without immediate switching, and you get positive= results with all appropriate controls in place (double-blind, level-matche= d, statistical significance), then I and others will accept them as correct= .. But if you do that, then I guarantee we'll be able to get the same positi= ve results using a quick-switching methodology! BTW, here's a good article on the fallacy of long-term listening tests:ht= tp://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf bob Hi Bob, We discussed some of these topics a few years ago and I learned a lot from the discussion, thank you (and nice to see you're still here!). But I *still* think that perceptual equivalence is not the same as indistinguishability. I would be interested in your thoughts about the following. First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive greater pleasure from one than from the other. Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds, because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable. The second example, which I am granting is hypothetical, would be one where we would want to say (I think) that the way A sounds is not the same as the way B sounds, though they might well be indistinguishable in the relevant testing situations. What do you think? Thanks. Mark |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:28:14 AM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote:
First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive greater pleasure from one than from the other. Not only is this possible, but it's quite common. I frequently listen to th= e same piece of music twice, and derive greater (or lesser) pleasure the se= cond time through. Of course, both times I'm listening on exactly the same system, so we canno= t ascribe the difference in pleasure to any difference in sound quality. Qu= ite likely, I have focused on different things each time I listened, and he= ard things the second time that I didn't notice the first. By the same token, if I'd done that listening on two different systems, I c= ould not ascribe any difference in pleasure to a difference between the sys= tems, because there are other possible explanations. Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds, because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable. So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot he= ar it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it? It s= eems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real world. = And that's leaving aside the fact that what you're suggesting is pure scien= ce fiction to begin with. Don't bother suggesting anything similar; I won't= respond. bob [quoted text deleted -- deb] |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
[quoted text deleted -- deb] On Jan 7, 7:24 pm,
wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:28:14 AM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote: First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive greater pleasure from one than from the other. Not only is this possible, but it's quite common. I frequently listen to = the same piece of music twice, and derive greater (or lesser) pleasure the = second time through. Of course, both times I'm listening on exactly the same system, so we can= not ascribe the difference in pleasure to any difference in sound quality. = Quite likely, I have focused on different things each time I listened, and = heard things the second time that I didn't notice the first. I mean consistently, so that the two signals have different causal properties. It seems to me that that's possible. By the same token, if I'd done that listening on two different systems, I= could not ascribe any difference in pleasure to a difference between the s= ystems, because there are other possible explanations. Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds, because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable. So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot = hear it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it? I didn't say you could. It seems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real wo= rld. Why impossible? There could not be sounds that affect loudness sensitivity that are not directly audible? And that's leaving aside the fact that what you're suggesting is pure scie= nce fiction to begin with. Think of it as a thought experiment. It's a logical point. "A and B sound different" is ambiguous. It can mean (1) The way A sounds is X, and the way B sounds is Y, and X is not identical to Y, or (2) It sounds like A and B are different. It's a scope ambiguity. In (2), "different" is within the scope of "sounds." In (1), it lies outside. Don't bother suggesting anything similar; I won't respond. bob [quoted text deleted -- deb] Thank you for your response. Mark |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds, because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable. The second example, which I am granting is hypothetical, would be one where we would want to say (I think) that the way A sounds is not the same as the way B sounds, though they might well be indistinguishable in the relevant testing situations. Several points 1. The scenario you describe is one where the two would be trivially distinguishable in all but the most simple of measurements, thus it would be easy to test your hypothesis. 2. Given what IS known about the properties of human hearing (and that's a LOT, much, much more than most participants in this an similar forums are aware of, no insult intended) given the amplitude and frequency of the ultrsonic levels needed to cause this loss in sensitivity in a way that is going to have an audible effect, the amount of ultrasonic energy could well be sufficient to fry the tweeters. Thus, yes, the two systems would sound different. 3. Your hypothesis is easily tested. Why no do so? The point is this, I am not discounting your hypothesis out of hand, nor even the possibility that similar phenomenon might be at play. But the fact is that specualtion and hypthesizing and all the rest are pointless without some real data on hand to see if all this is not anything more than clutching at straws to explain away differences due to non-auditory effects. And without carefully controlled, bias-controlled, repeatable procedures that have statistically significant outcomes, it will always remain nothing more than clutching at straws. People smarter and with FAR more experience than you, than me, than Nabob, than Audio Empire, than the various incarnations of the Scotts, and many more, have been doing very careful research on an incredibly broad range of human psychophysical phenomenon, with sensitivities far beyond what you and others have suggested here. Why haven't they found what is being claimed? And if they have missed something real, something you think is significant, then its up to you to prove that this new, as yet incovered TRVTH (tm) is out there. And without the scientific rigor to back it up, you and anyone else claims are going precisely nowhere. I still assert that there does not exist a single instance of an aspect of technology or hearing originating in or discovered by the high-end audio industry. All such claims fall squarely, thus far, into two bins: total flooby dust, or ho-hum-this- has-been-well-known-for-decades. And this will remain as long as the high-end "research" is dominated by imprecision, sloppiness, purveyors of snake-oil lakc of skepticism and, rgertaably, more than its share of total nutcases. Whatever real data might appear is buried in that excrement. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Jan 7, 9:24=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: Second, consider the following hypothetical example. =A0Two recorded excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. =A0Plausibly, the way A sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds, because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that the end of B will have. =A0However, it's not going to be easy to test for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. =A0If the listener switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. =A0And if the listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable. The second example, which I am granting is hypothetical, would be one where we would want to say (I think) that the way A sounds is not the same as the way B sounds, though they might well be indistinguishable in the relevant testing situations. Several points 1. The scenario you describe is one where the two would be =A0 =A0 trivially distinguishable in all but the most simple of =A0 =A0 measurements, thus it would be easy to test your hypothesis. Why would they be distinguishable by the listener? |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Monday, January 7, 2013 4:24:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:28:14 AM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two =20 signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish =20 one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and =20 forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening =20 to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be =20 difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but =20 nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive =20 greater pleasure from one than from the other. =20 =20 =20 Not only is this possible, but it's quite common. I frequently listen to = the same piece of music twice, and derive greater (or lesser) pleasure the = second time through. =20 =20 =20 Of course, both times I'm listening on exactly the same system, so we can= not ascribe the difference in pleasure to any difference in sound quality. = Quite likely, I have focused on different things each time I listened, and = heard things the second time that I didn't notice the first. =20 =20 =20 By the same token, if I'd done that listening on two different systems, I= could not ascribe any difference in pleasure to a difference between the s= ystems, because there are other possible explanations. =20 =20 =20 Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded =20 excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added =20 ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a =20 temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A =20 sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds, =20 because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that =20 the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test =20 for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener =20 switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because =20 any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the =20 listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she =20 has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which =20 requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable. =20 =20 =20 So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot = hear it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it? It= seems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real world= .. And that's leaving aside the fact that what you're suggesting is pure sci= ence fiction to begin with. Don't bother suggesting anything similar; I won= 't respond. =20 =20 =20 bob =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 [quoted text deleted -- deb] I think Mark is on to something there, but I'm not terribly sure that you q= uite=20 understood what he was saying.=20 What I got out of Marks post, if I understand this correctly, is that he be= lieves=20 that devices which cannot be distinguished from one another by DBTs and=20 possibly even on long listening sessions or by bench measurements, may stil= l,=20 on a subconscious level, affect the pleasure centers of the brain in differ= ent=20 ways. I think we have all experienced this in one way or another. Even thou= gh=20 one can't put one's finger on it, for some reason B is "more pleasurable" t= o=20 listen to than A. This, if a real phenomenon, would certainly defy any atte= mpts=20 at testing it and MAY indeed be why some people perceive differences in sim= ple=20 interconnects or speaker wire. I say that it MAY be simply because the othe= r=20 factors, such as measurements (being simple conductors, speaker cables=20 and interconnects are extremely easy to measure and to mathematically=20 model) and expectational bias are strong factors here mitigating against th= e=20 wire and cable used in stereo systems having any discernible sonic signatur= e. =20 Audio_Empire |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:44:28 PM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote:
[quoted text deleted -- deb] On Jan 7, 7:24 pm, wrote: I mean consistently, so that the two signals have different causal properties. It seems to me that that's possible. As I said before, anything is possible. But there is no evidence that this can actually occur, and a lot of indirect evidence that it cannot occur. Until there's some real evidence that it can occur, there is no point in discussing it. snip So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot hear it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it? I didn't say you could. Then your hypothetical is irrelevant. It seems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real world. Why impossible? There could not be sounds that affect loudness sensitivity that are not directly audible? No. Because you've devised a hypothetical in which you are claiming that something is audible, and yet admitting that there are no circumstances under which it is audible. You aren't making any sense. bob |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On Jan 7, 9:24 pm, Dick Pierce wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds, because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable. Several points 1. The scenario you describe is one where the two would be trivially distinguishable in all but the most simple of measurements, thus it would be easy to test your hypothesis. Why would they be distinguishable by the listener? I'm not syaing they would be distiguishable by the listener. That's not muy claim. You hypothesized that the differences in ultrsonic energy could have an effect on the short term loudness sensitivity of the listener, a hypothesis I am challenging. I merely stated that the differences between the two would be "trivially distinguishable in all but the most simple of measurements." It also would be a relatively simple experiment to try. TO turn such a hypothesis into an acceted theory requires verifiable, falsifiable, repeatable experimentation. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On 1/7/2013 9:03 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 4:24:08 PM UTC-8, wrote: snip I think Mark is on to something there, but I'm not terribly sure that you quite understood what he was saying. What I got out of Marks post, if I understand this correctly, is that he believes that devices which cannot be distinguished from one another by DBTs and possibly even on long listening sessions or by bench measurements, may still, on a subconscious level, affect the pleasure centers of the brain in different ways. I think we have all experienced this in one way or another. Even though one can't put one's finger on it, for some reason B is "more pleasurable" to listen to than A. Then how is it that they cannot be distinguished? Your postulate is clearly that there is a perceived difference in A and B. If you're saying one is more pleasurable, but can't be perceived as such, then you're claiming mutually exclusive attributes. This, if a real phenomenon, would certainly defy any attempts at testing it How so? Any double blind preference test would clearly identify a statistically significant preference for A or B. Keith |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:00:27 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 1/7/2013 9:03 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013 4:24:08 PM UTC-8, wrote: snip I think Mark is on to something there, but I'm not terribly sure that you quite understood what he was saying. What I got out of Marks post, if I understand this correctly, is that he believes that devices which cannot be distinguished from one another by DBTs and possibly even on long listening sessions or by bench measurements, may still, on a subconscious level, affect the pleasure centers of the brain in different ways. I think we have all experienced this in one way or another. Even though one can't put one's finger on it, for some reason B is "more pleasurable" to listen to than A. Then how is it that they cannot be distinguished? Your postulate is clearly that there is a perceived difference in A and B. If you're saying one is more pleasurable, but can't be perceived as such, then you're claiming mutually exclusive attributes. This, if a real phenomenon, would certainly defy any attempts at testing it How so? Any double blind preference test would clearly identify a statistically significant preference for A or B. Keith Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences in the normal sense. Differences noted (or not noted) between components in DBT or ABX test act upon the analytical centers of the conscious mind. On that level, there may be no discernible differences. But on a subliminal level, these differences might just register as a greater amount of pleasure for one component over the other. I said earlier that there would be no way to test this. On further reflection, I think that's wrong. I believe that a DBT could be easily set-up to test such a hypothesis. If the listener didn't know which two components to which he or she was listening, and could listen to the same full recording before switching and then listen to the other DUT for the entire same recording again, and then chose either A or B based on the amount of "pleasure" he or she received from listening to the recording twice, perhaps it would be useful. I know that I have often compared two amps, two preamps and two DACs that way, and have often preferred one over the other, without being able to put my finger on exactly why. Another example is that I have the Classic Records repressing (on single-sided, 200 gram virgin vinyl at 45 RPM) of Stravinsky's "Firebird" by Dorati and the LSO. I also have the same recording on CD. Both the CD and the remastered LP were overseen by the work's original producer, Wilma Fine. Being the same original analog recording from the same master tape, they of course, sound essentially the same. But for some reason that I cannot explain, I find myself pulling out the LP to play rather than the (excellent sounding) CD. With all of its pops and ticks, I find the LP a much more pleasurable listen than is the CD. Regards, Audio_Empire |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:51:10 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that= =20 stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as difference= s=20 in the normal sense.=20 What does that mean? Differences are either apparent to you, or they are no= t. Is it possible to derive more pleasure from A than B without knowing it?= Of course not. Differences noted (or not noted) between components=20 in DBT or ABX test act upon the analytical centers of the conscious mind. And you know this how? Are you a neuroscientist? Have you used fMRI to map= subjects' brain activity while undergoing an ABX test? Or are you just inv= enting "scientific" principles to fit your preconceived notions? On that level, there may be no discernible differences. But on a sublimin= al level, these differences might just register as a greater amount of pleas= ure for one component over the other. I said earlier that there would be no way to test this. On further reflection, I think that's wrong. I believe = that a DBT could be easily set-up to test such a hypothesis. If the listener didn't know which two components to which he or she was listening, and could listen to the same full recording before switching and then=20 listen to the other DUT for the entire same recording again, and then chose either A or B based on the amount of "pleasure" he or she received from listening to the recording twice, perhaps it would be useful.=20 Sure it would be useful. If you did that, you'd find out how wrong you are,= and we wouldn't ever have to hear about such speculations again. But here's the catch: You can't just do it once. You have to do it 20 times= , and prefer the same option at least 15 times out of the 20. Then you'd be= onto something. I know that I have often compared two amps, two preamps and two DACs that= =20 way, and have often preferred one over the other, without being able=20 to put my finger on exactly why. Unmatched levels? Presentation order bias? Sighted bias? The possibilities = are endless.=20 Another example is that I have the Classic Records repressing (on=20 single-sided, 200 gram virgin vinyl at 45 RPM) of Stravinsky's=20 "Firebird" by Dorati and the LSO. I also have the same recording on=20 CD. Both the CD and the remastered LP were overseen by the=20 work's original producer, Wilma Fine. Being the same original analog recording from the same master tape, they of course, sound essentially the same. But for some reason that I cannot explain,=20 I find myself pulling out the LP to play rather than the=20 (excellent sounding) CD. With all of its pops and ticks, I find the LP a much more pleasurable listen than is the CD. You're joking, right? Even in the highly unlikely event that precisely the = same master was used for both LP and CD production (which would be tantamou= nt to professional incompetence, IMHO), you're doing a sighted comparison o= n different devices with differing levels of resolution. Oh, and we know yo= u don't level-match properly, so there's that, too. Try making a clean CDR of the vinyl, and compare the three things--LP, CD, = CDR--with proper bias controls. You'll be replicating this famous experimen= t: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm Of course, the test subject was a notorious vinyl-hater, so we can write of= f the results as an obvious function of listener bias. :-) bob |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:30:28 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:51:10 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences in the normal sense. What does that mean? Differences are either apparent to you, or they are not. Is it possible to derive more pleasure from A than B without knowing it? Of course not. Differences noted (or not noted) between components in DBT or ABX test act upon the analytical centers of the conscious mind. And you know this how? Are you a neuroscientist? Have you used fMRI to map subjects' brain activity while undergoing an ABX test? Or are you just inventing "scientific" principles to fit your preconceived notions? On that level, there may be no discernible differences. But on a subliminal level, these differences might just register as a greater amount of pleasure for one component over the other. I said earlier that there would be no way to test this. On further reflection, I think that's wrong. I believe that a DBT could be easily set-up to test such a hypothesis. If the listener didn't know which two components to which he or she was listening, and could listen to the same full recording before switching and then listen to the other DUT for the entire same recording again, and then chose either A or B based on the amount of "pleasure" he or she received from listening to the recording twice, perhaps it would be useful. Sure it would be useful. If you did that, you'd find out how wrong you are, and we wouldn't ever have to hear about such speculations again. But here's the catch: You can't just do it once. You have to do it 20 times, and prefer the same option at least 15 times out of the 20. Then you'd be onto something. I know that I have often compared two amps, two preamps and two DACs that way, and have often preferred one over the other, without being able to put my finger on exactly why. Unmatched levels? Presentation order bias? Sighted bias? The possibilities are endless. Another example is that I have the Classic Records repressing (on single-sided, 200 gram virgin vinyl at 45 RPM) of Stravinsky's "Firebird" by Dorati and the LSO. I also have the same recording on CD. Both the CD and the remastered LP were overseen by the work's original producer, Wilma Fine. Being the same original analog recording from the same master tape, they of course, sound essentially the same. But for some reason that I cannot explain, I find myself pulling out the LP to play rather than the (excellent sounding) CD. With all of its pops and ticks, I find the LP a much more pleasurable listen than is the CD. You're joking, right? Even in the highly unlikely event that precisely the same master was used for both LP and CD production (which would be tantamount to professional incompetence, IMHO), you're doing a sighted comparison on different devices with differing levels of resolution. Oh, and we know you don't level-match properly, so there's that, too. What part of "I enjoy" the record more than I enjoy the CD" do you not understand, Nab? Where did I say that this is a test? More importantly when I said "Being the same original analog recording from the same master tape" I assumed that the reader understood that this meant that both the CD and LP were of the same performance, made from the same original master. I said nothing about how many interim steps it might take to to come up with either. I do know for a fact that Fine digitized the CDs directly from the original tape her late husband recorded back around 1960. The tape used to master the LP, of course was a copy. Nobody uses a valuable master tape to cut an LP. Having mastered a number of records myself, I can tell you that's just standard procedure. Try making a clean CDR of the vinyl, and compare the three things--LP, CD, CDR--with proper bias controls. You'll be replicating this famous experiment: Why? I'm not interested in an "experiment" in this case. I merely noted that some recordings give me more listening pleasure than others, and I gave a couple of examples. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm Will do. Of course, the test subject was a notorious vinyl-hater, so we can write off the results as an obvious function of listener bias. :-) bob Audio_Empire |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences in the normal sense. Cite? |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:09:16 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences in the normal sense. Cite? Mark DeBellis. If you'd been following the thread you would realize that he postulated a "theory" that perhaps the differences people hear in equipment that cannot be measured and doesn't show up in DBTs or bench tests, is possibly subconscious and subconsciously stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. I said that this might account for some phenomena that I myself have experienced, but I can't actually substantiated it with any other known phenomena. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:30:28 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:51:10 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote: Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences in the normal sense. What does that mean? Differences are either apparent to you, or they are not. Is it possible to derive more pleasure from A than B without knowing it? Of course not. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm Of course, the test subject was a notorious vinyl-hater, so we can write off the results as an obvious function of listener bias. :-) Bob, I read the The Teifenbrun Challenge from the URL above and found it very interesting. I could have predicted the outcome as I have always maintained that the best properly recorded digital (even 16/44.1) is better than the best properly recorded analog (I ought to know, I have shelves full of well recorded analog tapes that I made of a professional symphony orchestra using an Otari MX5050 analog tape recorder running at 15 ips and half-track with Dolby A, an Allen and Heath "portable" mixing console and Sony C-37P and AKG 441 and Sony ECM22P microphones. When I replaced the Otari/Dolby setup with a Sony PCM-501/Betamax, the quality of the recordings improved by a light-year!). But, as interesting as the referenced test is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion as far as I can see. Am I missing some hidden meaning in the test? If so, I guess I'm just too dense to see it. Regards Audio_Empire |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Brief History of CD DBTs
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... I would be interested in your thoughts about the following. First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. The above is obviously self-contradictory. If you can't distinguish the two signals by any conscious means, how can you distinguish them and consciously know it? If you could somehow elevate the unconscious sensation of greater pleasure to your consciousness, then you would be able to consciously distinguish them by that means. If you can distinguish the two signals by elevating unconsious pleasure to consciousness, then that would be a conscious form of distinction and your claim that you can't distinguish them consciously would be falsified. To put the previous hyptothesis forward, one would need to avoid the application of fairly simple logic. It could still stand as an statement of faith or a tenet of some sacred book. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-) | Audio Opinions | |||
A laundry-list of why DBTs are used | Audio Opinions | |||
Good old DBTs | Audio Opinions | |||
Articles on Audio and DBTs in Skeptic mag | High End Audio | |||
Power Conditioners - DBTs? | High End Audio |