Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
Mike wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Mike" wrote in message Conventional tests assume that the ear/ brain works like measuring equipment. It's well known that human listening is often very inconsistent, and can be affected by the listener's beliefs. I know of no test equipment that works that way. Test equipment tends to be very consistent, and being inanimate, it has no beliefs at all to bias it. Exactly, that's why it is such a poor assumption that people experience the same thing each time they listen to a section (small or large) of music. I've never heard of an ABX test that didn't assume that. I've never head of an ABX that did. Every ABX allows the listener to listen as many times as they want to A, B, and X, before making a call as to whether X is A or B. By your scenario, it would be impossible to identify two presentations as being the *same*. But it's not. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
Arny Krueger wrote:
"George Graves" wrote in message What's interesting is that when we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to find the same characteristics for the same equipment, even though we all came by these "sonic signatures" independently of one another on our own systems. True, that subjective reviewers tend to draw their descriptive words and phrases from a relatively small pool, and there's a tendency for subjective reviews to all sound the same. There's also group bias effects when people make choices in groups. That's why good comparisons insure that there's no influence from others in the room...including the proctor. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
Walt wrote:
George Graves wrote: ... If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no results were obtained, and if not, the louder of the components under test, always was picked as the best. Hold on there. The point of a double-blind test is to determine whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Not to determine which one is "best" (whatever that means). If the volume is not matched, then of course the subject can hear a difference - "sample A is louder". But that's not what people tend to report, if the levels aren't grossly mismatched. Small mismatches in level are commonly reported as difference in *quality* ("A sounds better"), or parameters *other than* loudness (e.g., "A sound clearer'"). THis is a known psychouacoustic effect. THis is why it's important to carefully match levels in comparisons. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"Mike" wrote in message
I would like to discuss what assumptions one has to make about the ear/ brain to investigate it. What do standard references say about this? Is this proposed discussion going to be based on established facts or idle speculation? You write as though this were some kind of personal battle of opposing viewpoints. That tone was set by the OP. You also seem to need things to be precisely defined in order to believe they exist. No Mike, that is your viewpoint. It's obvious hearing operates differently under different conditions. Yes it is, and this is one reason that bias-controlled testing was developed. For example, you have many choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss something else, so your intention is one condition. Ever study the topic of listener training? But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption that we have the same experience each time we listen to something. Time to broaden your knowlege base, Mike. BTW you're making the most common error that people make about blind tests - they think that if they come up with some situation, it applies to only blind tests. In fact, the idea that we have the same experience each time we listen to something is one of the major weaknesses of sighted listening with few if any experimental controls. That's a very poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. Thank you for pointing out one of the problems that has spurred the development of bias-controlled listening tests, Mike. If it's incumbent on anyone to provide proof, it's incumbent on those who do the experiments to show that they have a firm basis. Yes Mike, there is a serious problem with people making claims about hearing differences, based on experiments that are built on very shakey ground. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"George Graves" wrote in message
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:02:07 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:56:01 -0700, Michael Warner wrote (in article ): On 16 Jul 2007 04:08:05 GMT, George Graves wrote: The results were never promising in my experience. If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no results were obtained IOW, the audible differences audiophiles claim to hear don't actually exist. Isn't that great? You can find something more productive to waste your money on. ABX differences and that differences that I couldn't hear in direct comparison were easily heard on extended listening sessions Yeah. Non-blind listening sessions, I bet :-) I might question the level matching. And it could be otherwise, how? I'm the one replacing my reference component with the DUT. Of course its non-blind. Long term listening tests have been done where the replacement process was hidden from the listener, and randomized. Yeah, I've done them too. It works. I can listen to a component where I don't know what I'm listening too and make comments that characterize the sound I hear. However, those comments might be random noises. How do you know that your comments are related to a specific component? Am I commenting on one component or on the entire playback chain. That is irrelevant to any discussion of blind testing because it is true of sighted testing as well. If I'm not intimately familiar with the sound of the entire system, then it's obvious that my findings are about the latter. That is irrelevant to any discussion of blind testing because it is true of sighted testing as well. Not too useful. Agreed. But if someone comes into my home, and replaces a component blindly so that I don't know what it is, and I use material with which I'm familiar with which to listen, then any changes from what I normally hear are obviously going to be attributable to whatever component was exchanged (or the way in which the "foreign" component interacts with the rest of my system). No there may be no changes at all. Or the changes you think you hear may imaginary or wrong, and different from the actual changes that took place. Wouldn't this make sense? |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"George Graves" wrote in message
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:55:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message What's interesting is that when we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to find the same characteristics for the same equipment, even though we all came by these "sonic signatures" independently of one another on our own systems. True, that subjective reviewers tend to draw their descriptive words and phrases from a relatively small pool, and there's a tendency for subjective reviews to all sound the same. Nice rationalization, No, fact. but you're overlooking something. If I say that a certain pre-amp has a sandpaper-like dryness in the upper octaves as opposed to being syruppy, or dark, or grainy, and other subjective reviewers come to the same conclusion independently, then, it would almost have to follow that this particular component, does, indeed, exhibit that characteristic, would it not? If the meanings of these words were standardized, and independent tests with known distortions showed that reviewers used words consistently and reliably, and if it were known that reviewers operated completely independently, then maybe. However, high end audio reviewing seems to be a very incestuous business, and reviewers seem to be very interested in what other reviewers say about the equipment they review. This has been particularly true since the advent of the Internet. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 15, 8:18 pm, Mike wrote:
Just wondering if anyone's interested in discussing the validity of blind testing; that is, the epistemological underpinning. Blind testing removes only one variable, but it is that one variable that has captured the hearts and minds of many in the "high-end" hobby.To be brutally blunt, that variable is built about the closely- held belief that "if it is expensive and well-hyped it must be good" in many combinations and permutations. Anything that threatens a closely-held belief will be denegrated as invalid. Much smoke and mirrors will be utilized, all sorts of 'pholisophy' will be expounded and much blather as well. Often by sincerely honest individuals who are true-believers in their faith. But such testing should be just as able to prove (*or not*) differences between similarly priced-and- theoretical-quality equipment as between high-and-low-end equipment. But its threat lies in its simply not caring what is behind the curtain. For any test of any nature to be valid, it must be repeatable and develop the same results reliably. A repeated and reliable "no-result" is actually a perfectly valid result. Honest, well-designed tests will as often show no results as repeatable results. To harp some, honest, well-designed tests will take time. Both in the design and in the execution. Sometimes a great deal of it. If one accepts the postulate that the only true measure of any audio system is its ability to withstand the test of time in one's own listening area, then one must also accept that any previous test/ audition must accept repeats *as-necessary* to prove either *some* reliable result or *no* reliable result. This may take a great deal of time, again. Just a few random musings. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"George Graves" wrote in message
How can the Asch effect be an issue, when another reviewer who I do not know in another publication comes to exactly the same conclusions that I have come to, when neither of us knew that the other was auditioning the same piece of equipment? Prove that such a thing ever happened. I suspect that considerable latitude will be required to show that two reviewers reached the identical same conclusions. I cannot speak for others, of course, but, my audio perception is based upon my memory or real, live music. The problem with that line of logic is that the sound of music is constantly changing and evolving. A live sound can be a true standard for judging the reproduction of recordings only if the reviewers were present for the original recording session. This is very rare, and there are other requirements as well that are not met. I go to concerts constantly. I frequent local jazz clubs, attend concerts of symphonic as well as chamber music several times a week. So what? Every musician plays a little different every time they play. Every instrument is changing its sound as it is tuned and used. Every listening location in every room sounds different. Every room sounds different. While I'm sure that my memory of live music is imperfect, it makes me a better judge, I think, than someone who merely compares one audio component to another, relying on nothing for a touchstone to reality or a reference. In another of your posts George, you admitted that the sound quality of the whole audio system matters. We all know about complementary distortions. If a piece of audio gear sounds good in a certain system, what is the global applicability of that knowlege? None? usical perception is extremely complex and many things can change the sound of music from one listening instance to the next, Hold that thought! but I do know that there are certain instrumental "signatures" that manage to survive the differences imposed by venue acoustics, relative seating location, etc. and I try to cue-in on those. I haven't suspended disbelief enough to belive that such a thing could be true with enough precision to reliably detect the kinds of small differences that are common today. I also make my own recordings of many of these. I use a MiniDisc Hi-MD recorder in the 16-bit linear record mode and a Sony LT-929 'MS' stereo microphone for many of them (especially jazz club performance - and yes, I always ask permission). When I use these recordings as well as symphonic recordings that I have made using professional equipment as my source materials when evaluating equipment, I can easily tell when a piece of equipment has introduced some coloration that is not consonant with the sound of live music. Proven by which carefully-controlled experiements? None of this is perfect, to say the least, but it does make my perceptions of a piece of equipment's sonic signature similar to that of other reviewers auditioning the same make and model piece of equipment. This has happened to me so many times that I know its not coincidence. I think that John Atkinson of Stereophile posts here occasionally. I believe that if you ask him, he''ll tell you that the same thing has happened to him, probably countless times. It's not a rare occurrence. This validates long-term listening tests vs ABX tests as far as I'm concerned. Since ABX tests can easily be, and have been "long-term listening tests", the last statement's obvious falseness throws serious doubts on the validity of the rest of the questionable assertions in this post. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
[Moderator's note: This is straying from audio discussion so unless a
followup has audio content, this sub-thread is ended. -- deb ] wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: Epistemology is the study of *why* we believe what we believe, not what we believe. I think it would be more correct to say that epistemology is the science of the limits of knowledge, and, in a way, how we can ascertain knowledge within these limits (method). One published defintion is: "Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature, methods, limitations, and validity of knowledge and belief." The study of the limitations of knowlege is only a fraction of the domain of epistemology. Furthermore, the study of the limitatsion of knowlege is a subset of my very brief definition, since studying the limits of knowlege is contained in the study of why we believe. I see it more as the "what" than the "why." Obviously I haven't expressed myself well. The "what" that I was referring to would be a specific instance of knowlege. That should have been apparent from its context, which was a discussion of epistemology as it relates to bias-controlled listening tests. The "what" is bias-controlled listening tests. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"Mike" wrote in message
On Jul 16, 4:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Mike" wrote in message Conventional tests assume that the ear/ brain works like measuring equipment. It's well known that human listening is often very inconsistent, and can be affected by the listener's beliefs. I know of no test equipment that works that way. Test equipment tends to be very consistent, and being inanimate, it has no beliefs at all to bias it. Exactly, that's why it is such a poor assumption that people experience the same thing each time they listen to a section (small or large) of music. I've never heard of an ABX test that didn't assume that. I've never heard of an ABX listening test that presumed that people hear the same thing every time they listen to a section of music. The presumption that people may hear different things is one reason why ABX tests are composed of mulitple trials, and why statistics are used to analyze the results of the multiple trials. If ABX presumed that people hear the same thing every time they listen to a section of music, then there would be no need for multiple trials. Since multiple trials are part and parcel of the ABX test's definition, your assertion is completely false. Not only have you got this important premise of your OP completely wrong, you've exactly reversed its true meaning. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Walt wrote: George Graves wrote: ... If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no results were obtained, and if not, the louder of the components under test, always was picked as the best. Hold on there. The point of a double-blind test is to determine whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Not to determine which one is "best" (whatever that means). DBT can be used to determine if preference is due to sound, or to something else. Of course, it will already have been determined that the two things sound *different*. Such is the case for using DBTs to study loudspeaker preference. Yes, you, George and Harry are correct that dbt can be used to determine preference *after* it's been shown that the two things are different. I mispoke. Let's try again: The first hurdle of a double-blind test is to determine whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Only after a difference has been shown can one use dbt to determine which one is "best" (whatever that means). //Walt |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 17, 6:57 pm, George Graves wrote:
equipment sounds to me. What's interesting is that when we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to find the same characteristics for the same equipment, even though we all came by these "sonic signatures" independently of one another on our own systems and they usually don't show up under ABX testing conditions. Mass hysteria? You tell me. How do you know that you all came to the same conclusions independently? How do you know you all weren't affected by reading the same product literature, or reviews, or talking to the same audio salesman--or even listening to different audio salesmen, who all read the same product literature? How do you know that your opinions weren't shaped by talking to each other? Sit in a room with some audiophiles sometime and watch them negotiate their way to a consensus. For that matter, how do you know everyone agrees? In a field where people use rather fuzzy laguage to describe their perceptions, how do you know that two people mean the same thing when they report a component as "bright" or "warm"? And if one person says it's bright, and the other says it's warm, is it because they hear it differently, or because they use different words to describe the same thing? You don't know. bob |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 18, 6:51 pm, Mike wrote:
I would like to discuss what assumptions one has to make about the ear/ brain to investigate it. You're the one making the assumption here--that people's perceptions change and therefore DBTs *can't* work. The problem is, they do work. They provide reliable results consistent with other knowledge. So it's your assumption that must be wrong. You write as though this were some kind of personal battle of opposing viewpoints. You write as if you think this is NOT a scientific question--a common stance for those who don't have any data on their side. You also seem to need things to be precisely defined in order to believe they exist. It's obvious hearing operates differently under different conditions. For example, you have many choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss something else, so your intention is one condition. But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption that we have the same experience each time we listen to something. No, they don't. They make the assumption that if you apply the same stimulus to the ear, the same signal will be sent to the brain. That's all. That's a very poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. If it's incumbent on anyone to provide proof, it's incumbent on those who do the experiments to show that they have a firm basis. This evidences a profound lack of understanding about how science works. snip I'm not "getting away from the experience of music." You're the one making the claims--and the wild assumptions--here. You're assuming, or claiming, that "experiencing music" will somehow change the sensitivity of our hearing. But you have no evidence for this. You're assuming it does not change the sensitivity, and provide no evidence for that. I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm looking at the data. And the data tells me that, if anything, "experiencing music" makes you LESS sensitive to small audible differences, not more. (Not really--at least, it's not a question of sensitivity. It's that, for various reasons, it is harder to reliably hear differences in music than in some other sounds, and it is much harder if you try to do it over an extended timeframe.) Indeed, available evidence suggests the opposite--that extended music listening is a LESS sensitive way to test for audible differences. "Extended" vs "non-extended" is not the point. Even "enjoying music" is not the point. The point is that our experience as a whole changes each time we listen. So what? We're not testing what you're calling "experience." We testing sensitivity to a stimulus. Any "experience" is going to be affected by mulitple stimuli, plus memory. DBTs are designed to control, better than any alternative approach possibly could, for those other factors, and isolate the effect of a single change in stimulus. Even if you were right, ever other way of answering the question--including especially the ways popular among the high-end Kool-Aid drinkers--would be worse. And, just to drive home the most important point: YOU HAVE NO DATA. bob |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:04:35 -0700, Walt wrote
(in article ): Steven Sullivan wrote: Walt wrote: George Graves wrote: ... If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no results were obtained, and if not, the louder of the components under test, always was picked as the best. Hold on there. The point of a double-blind test is to determine whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Not to determine which one is "best" (whatever that means). DBT can be used to determine if preference is due to sound, or to something else. Of course, it will already have been determined that the two things sound *different*. Such is the case for using DBTs to study loudspeaker preference. Yes, you, George and Harry are correct that dbt can be used to determine preference *after* it's been shown that the two things are different. I mispoke. Let's try again: The first hurdle of a double-blind test is to determine whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Only after a difference has been shown can one use dbt to determine which one is "best" (whatever that means). //Walt Now, you've hit upon a very good point. In the absence of any reference sound, which one is "best" is a meaningless phrase on any but a personal level. For instance, if a certain listener likes big bass and bright highs and forward sounding midrange, then any component that produces sound like that will be found, by that listener, to be better than another component that does not exhibit any of those characteristics even if the component that he does not like sounds more neutral or more like real music (not necessarily the same thing). Now, this in itself can be useful if the listener is a reviewer and his readership knows of his preferences for that type of sound. Even if the reader has exactly the opposite tastes, he will know that the more enthusiasm this reviewer exhibits for particular piece of equipment, the less it's apt to please him. But that's a whole different subject. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:58:21 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): On Jul 15, 8:18 pm, Mike wrote: Just wondering if anyone's interested in discussing the validity of blind testing; that is, the epistemological underpinning. Blind testing removes only one variable, but it is that one variable that has captured the hearts and minds of many in the "high-end" hobby.To be brutally blunt, that variable is built about the closely- held belief that "if it is expensive and well-hyped it must be good" in many combinations and permutations. Anything that threatens a closely-held belief will be denegrated as invalid. Much smoke and mirrors will be utilized, all sorts of 'pholisophy' will be expounded and much blather as well. Often by sincerely honest individuals who are true-believers in their faith. But such testing should be just as able to prove (*or not*) differences between similarly priced-and- theoretical-quality equipment as between high-and-low-end equipment. But its threat lies in its simply not caring what is behind the curtain. For any test of any nature to be valid, it must be repeatable and develop the same results reliably. A repeated and reliable "no-result" is actually a perfectly valid result. Honest, well-designed tests will as often show no results as repeatable results. To harp some, honest, well-designed tests will take time. Both in the design and in the execution. Sometimes a great deal of it. If one accepts the postulate that the only true measure of any audio system is its ability to withstand the test of time in one's own listening area, then one must also accept that any previous test/ audition must accept repeats *as-necessary* to prove either *some* reliable result or *no* reliable result. This may take a great deal of time, again. Just a few random musings. Well, you are quite correct. One of the joys I get from high-end audio is finding (and reporting on) lower priced equipment that sonically performs equally well or better than much of the well-hyped and expensive spread. Of course, there are other things to consider too, such as build quality. No sense of having a piece of equipment that performs stunningly if, for instance, the RCA jacks fail after a few cable insertions or the volume control or mode switches get noisy after being used a few months. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:51:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:55:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message What's interesting is that when we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to find the same characteristics for the same equipment, even though we all came by these "sonic signatures" independently of one another on our own systems. True, that subjective reviewers tend to draw their descriptive words and phrases from a relatively small pool, and there's a tendency for subjective reviews to all sound the same. Nice rationalization, No, fact. but you're overlooking something. If I say that a certain pre-amp has a sandpaper-like dryness in the upper octaves as opposed to being syruppy, or dark, or grainy, and other subjective reviewers come to the same conclusion independently, then, it would almost have to follow that this particular component, does, indeed, exhibit that characteristic, would it not? If the meanings of these words were standardized, and independent tests with known distortions showed that reviewers used words consistently and reliably, and if it were known that reviewers operated completely independently, then maybe. How would one know that? Most of the things that people hear have never been quantified. Hell, that's why subjective reviewing started in the first place. Equipment got to the point where it all measured the same, yet sounded different. Obviously, somebody wasn't measuring the right things. Eventually new types of distortion where quantified and ways were found to measure them, but more importantly, design methodologies were developed to largely eliminate many of these "new distortions". It was found, for instance that large amounts of overall feedback in solid-state amplifiers caused something called transient intermodulation distortion (TIM). Now the standard practice is to design amps without overall feedback loops, but to rather, use only stage-by-stage feedback, and some designers have found ways to use none at all. Slew-Induced Distortion (SID) was first identified and then tamed by using solid-state active devices which switched must faster and had a much higher gain bandwidth than what was being used before. Distortion generated by passive components was, until about 20 years ago, unheard of until it was found that certain types of dielectric materials in capacitors held onto "old" signals long after the event that generated them had ended, only to "leak" those by now uncorrelated signals on top of signals currently being passed by the capacitor. This phenomenon, now known as dielectric absorption distortion is now mitigated by using dielectric materials that have low absorption properties like polypropylene and polystyrene. But amplifying devices still sound different from one another, so there are still non-linear properties of these devices that we don't understand. Maybe someday, amplifiers will become what Stewart Hegeman once characterized as "a straight wire, with gain" and subjective testing won't be needed any more for electronics, but we aren't there yet - not even close! However, high end audio reviewing seems to be a very incestuous business, and reviewers seem to be very interested in what other reviewers say about the equipment they review. This has been particularly true since the advent of the Internet. Actually, that would seem to your own skeptical paranoia at work. I know many of the better regarded reviewers, have worked with many of them and regard not a few as my friends. They try hard to be honest and forthright with their opinions and none would think of writing anything that they hadn't experienced with their own ears (I certainly know that I don't) and I think, that overall, they succeed admirably. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 19, 4:07 pm, bob wrote:
On Jul 18, 6:51 pm, Mike wrote: I would like to discuss what assumptions one has to make about the ear/ brain to investigate it. You're the one making the assumption here--that people's perceptions change and therefore DBTs *can't* work. The problem is, they do work. They provide reliable results consistent with other knowledge. So it's your assumption that must be wrong. DBT's work for what they work at. Any difference large enough to overcome uncontrolled effects. They don't control the perception of music, however. And the experience of music changes each time one listens. There's no assumption he just simple facts that in fact, we all seem to agree on. You write as though this were some kind of personal battle of opposing viewpoints. You write as if you think this is NOT a scientific question--a common stance for those who don't have any data on their side. It's a scientific question, but it's poor science to make generalizations about data while ignoring where that data came from. You also seem to need things to be precisely defined in order to believe they exist. It's obvious hearing operates differently under different conditions. For example, you have many choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss something else, so your intention is one condition. But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption that we have the same experience each time we listen to something. No, they don't. They make the assumption that if you apply the same stimulus to the ear, the same signal will be sent to the brain. That's all. Wrong. They are based on the brain being able to construct a conscious experience out of that signal. That's the only way you know what to choose. And there are vast numbers of highly distinct ways to construct an experience out of a given signal, and in fact most of those ways are not amenable to direct conscious control. That's a very poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. If it's incumbent on anyone to provide proof, it's incumbent on those who do the experiments to show that they have a firm basis. This evidences a profound lack of understanding about how science works. snip I'm not "getting away from the experience of music." You're the one making the claims--and the wild assumptions--here. You're assuming, or claiming, that "experiencing music" will somehow change the sensitivity of our hearing. But you have no evidence for this. You're assuming it does not change the sensitivity, and provide no evidence for that. I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm looking at the data. And the data tells me that, if anything, "experiencing music" makes you LESS sensitive to small audible differences, not more. (Not really--at least, it's not a question of sensitivity. It's that, for various reasons, it is harder to reliably hear differences in music than in some other sounds, and it is much harder if you try to do it over an extended timeframe.) There are a lot of invalid ways to try to draw that conclusion. What we need is a test that can control the experience of music---this is not the same thing as listening for a long time, and not the same thing as using music as a test signal. Indeed, available evidence suggests the opposite--that extended music listening is a LESS sensitive way to test for audible differences. "Extended" vs "non-extended" is not the point. Even "enjoying music" is not the point. The point is that our experience as a whole changes each time we listen. So what? We're not testing what you're calling "experience." For aforementioned reasons, we are. We testing sensitivity to a stimulus. Any "experience" is going to be affected by mulitple stimuli, plus memory. DBTs are designed to control, better than any alternative approach possibly could, for those other factors, and isolate the effect of a single change in stimulus. It only isolates changes which are large enough to overcome the "noise" created by the effects of hearing sounds multiple times or memory, as you mention. Even if you were right, ever other way of answering the question--including especially the ways popular among the high-end Kool-Aid drinkers--would be worse. I think they are all equally bad. And, just to drive home the most important point: YOU HAVE NO DATA. I read that as saying, you would rather comfort yourself with irrelevant data than ask where it came from. Mike |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 19, 3:42 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message For example, you have many choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss something else, so your intention is one condition. Ever study the topic of listener training? The changes in perception of music from repetition to repetition are not directly under conscious control. Describe a form of listener training which addresses this. But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption that we have the same experience each time we listen to something. Time to broaden your knowlege base, Mike. BTW you're making the most common error that people make about blind tests - they think that if they come up with some situation, it applies to only blind tests. In fact, the idea that we have the same experience each time we listen to something is one of the major weaknesses of sighted listening with few if any experimental controls. Ah.. the claim that blind testing must be valid because sighted testing isn't. I think they both have serious problems in regard to perception of music. That's a very poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. Thank you for pointing out one of the problems that has spurred the development of bias-controlled listening tests, Mike. Ironic, isn't it, that "bias-controlled" listening doesn't control one of the largest sources of variation in perception of music? Mike |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 17, 3:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Mike wrote: and do not reach our brains?" I think even you would disagree with that definition if you thought about it. They are testing whether two different sounds can be told apart, or to say it another way, whether they produce two different experiences. You can't get away from the experience of music unless you are trying to arbitrarily separate the experience of sound from the experience of music. That's one poor assumption. I can listen to the eact same recorded performance of a work on the exact same rig -- even minutes apart -- and have different 'experiences' of it. For example, I might be more bored by it the second time. But of course the *sound* hasn't changed at all. Yet by your logic, I've listened to two different sounds. Wrong. The experience of music is affected by things other than the physical sound signal, but it's a poor assumption to say that the physical signal can still be perceived as a whole when you've removed the experience of music. Imagine if that logic were carried over into all scientific work. Maybe you have a theory about how sounds that do not reach our brains can nonetheless affect how we experience music. If so, I'm not sure I want to hear it. Yet conventional blind testing (ABX with many quick trials for example) does not control them. Conventional tests assume that the ear/ brain works like measuring equipment. It assumes (1) we experience the same thing each time we listen, No, they don't at all. In fact, they control for this by requiring mulitple trials and/or subjects. Exactly.. they require multiple trials while not controlling what's going on inside your brain during each trial. That's the POINT. Your *brain* will quite readily 'hear' difference where *none exists*. And will also be unclear or confused when differences *do* exist. A DBT is testing not just the limits of "audibility" but the limits of confusion as well. In other words, to correctly identify X, your brain needs the proper circuitry to process the difference, but you also need clear enough conscious perception to *know* that difference exists. Quick switching, just to name one common type of DBT which is claimed to be an accurate representation of the lower limits of human sensitivity, is a great way to obscure the music in the signal. The old 'phantom switch' setup is a classic example, where literally nothing is changed, but the listener is led to believe that something has been changed. Usually they report hearing 'differnece' -- sometimes a comically large one. So, let the brain 'do' what it likes. Running the comparison 'blind' takes care of its tendency to overestimate the occurence of 'difference'. Meanwhile, with training, some tiny measurable differences -- e.g., on the order of 0.2 dB in some frequency ranges -- can be confidently shown to be discernable via DBT. Others...not so much. Which makes sense; no one should expect that all measurable differences are perceptible (whereas all perceptible differences so far, have turned out to have a measurement affected by them, indirectly if not directly). and (2) we can perceive details in sound independently of our intentions or state of mind. They don't assume this either. In fact, those conducting good DBTs go to some lengths to make sure that their subjects are in a state of mind that is conducive to detecting minute sonic differences. Right.. they have defined "minute sonic differences" as something different than perceiving music.That definition itself becomes a limiting factor in how well you can generalize the results. "perceived" difference in music, as for any sound, can occur even when the music itself is exactly the same. How do you propose to get around this fundamental problem? See my first post. I don't think anyone knows how to get around it, yet. Mike |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 19, 3:58 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:18 pm, Mike wrote: Just wondering if anyone's interested in discussing the validity of blind testing; that is, the epistemological underpinning. Blind testing removes only one variable, but it is that one variable that has captured the hearts and minds of many in the "high-end" hobby.To be brutally blunt, that variable is built about the closely- held belief that "if it is expensive and well-hyped it must be good" in many combinations and permutations. Anything that threatens a closely-held belief will be denegrated as invalid. Much smoke and mirrors will be utilized, all sorts of 'pholisophy' will be expounded and much blather as well. Often by sincerely honest individuals who are true-believers in their faith. But such testing should be just as able to prove (*or not*) differences between similarly priced-and- theoretical-quality equipment as between high-and-low-end equipment. But its threat lies in its simply not caring what is behind the curtain. Straw man argument, here. I'm not talking up the virtues of sighted listening, and I've love nothing better than to enjoy inexpensive, but well-designed audio equipment. Mike |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"Walt" wrote in message
The first hurdle of a double-blind test is to determine whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. I agree with the basic idea that for there to be a preference for something over other things, there has to be a reliably perceptible difference between them. However, that's not a hurdle for the test, that's a hurdle for the listener. Only after a difference has been shown can one use dbt to determine which one is "best" (whatever that means). The generally agreed-upon purpose of a test is to determine the conformance or lack of conformance to an established standard. If you wish to introduce the concept of there being a best, then the best is the one that most fully conforms to the standard, or does so in the best way, etc. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
If one accepts the postulate that the only true measure of any audio system is its ability to withstand the test of time in one's own listening area, then one must also accept that any previous test/ audition must accept repeats *as-necessary* to prove either *some* reliable result or *no* reliable result. This may take a great deal of time, again. The postulate that the only true measure of any audio system is its ability to withstand the test of time in one's own listening area can be questionable. For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even admit that the equipment has some serious faults. The test that is now known as the ABX test was developed by audiophiles in order to bring some order and fairness to controversies over which piece of equipment is the more sonically accurate performer. I was a party to exactly that very kind of controversy, and I developed the first test that was eventually called an ABX test in order to shed light on equipment sound quality to help resolve that controversy. That such a common result of ABX testing would be a finding of "no reliably detectible differences" was completely and totally unexpected by me. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"Walt" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: Walt wrote: George Graves wrote: ... If the volumes were carefully matched, then little or no results were obtained, and if not, the louder of the components under test, always was picked as the best. Hold on there. The point of a double-blind test is to determine whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Not to determine which one is "best" (whatever that means). DBT can be used to determine if preference is due to sound, or to something else. Of course, it will already have been determined that the two things sound *different*. Such is the case for using DBTs to study loudspeaker preference. Yes, you, George and Harry are correct that dbt can be used to determine preference *after* it's been shown that the two things are different. I mispoke. Let's try again: The first hurdle of a double-blind test is to determine whether the subject can hear a *difference* between the samples. Only after a difference has been shown can one use dbt to determine which one is "best" (whatever that means). //Walt Actually, that sounds logical but it is not true. There is the psychological phenomenon known as "subliminal" or beneath the surface. Occassionally we experienced this in food, where something was not identified as "different" but did result in a statistically significant preference. This usually shows up in proto-monadic testing, where there is an insensitivity (statistically) to difference but often not to preference. Of course the opposite is also true....you can have no difference in preference while having statistical identification differences noted. This is not uncommon in paired comparison testing. Undoubtably audio testing of various types have their own quirks and characteristics. Unfortunately some here have latched onto ABX and ABC/hr as the be-all and end-all of audio testing without being willing to discuss, much less explore, what some of the strengths and weaknesses of such tests may be. The only professional work being done in this field seems to be at HK. Here is an analogy (although only a related, not a close, one): It used to be believed that consumers made rationale choices. The model was awareness-knowledge-trial-preference-use. This seemed the proper model for consumers making high-risk purchases at that time. However, by the end of the sixties those of us doing work in consumer behavior in the large consumer packaged goods companies knew the model was wrong. The actual model for low-risk purchases was awareness-impulse-trial-preference-justification-use. This same model seems to have overtaken our political system and perhaps other high-risk areas of "purchase" as well. It is meat for another thread on why our political system somehow no longer appears to be a serious, high-risk category. It should be noted, however, that so long as today's high-priced gear is not viewed as high-risk (because of the broadening descrepancy between the well-off and the remainder of us) then it may fall more into the impulse-purchase-model for high-income consumers. The corallary is that critics who increasingly see even modestly-priced gear as high-risk (relative to income) become increasingly desparate to somehow make purchasing high-priced gear "immoral" or at least "unwise" (often expressed as "foolish" as in "audiophools"). Because to them, any purchase of even a few hundred dollars must be carefully considered. So, back to the beginning of this post....beware of "logical models". When it comes to human beings (including hearing), all is not likely to be what it seems. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:12:39 -0700, Mike wrote
(in article ): On Jul 17, 3:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Mike wrote: and do not reach our brains?" I think even you would disagree with that definition if you thought about it. They are testing whether two different sounds can be told apart, or to say it another way, whether they produce two different experiences. You can't get away from the experience of music unless you are trying to arbitrarily separate the experience of sound from the experience of music. That's one poor assumption. I can listen to the eact same recorded performance of a work on the exact same rig -- even minutes apart -- and have different 'experiences' of it. For example, I might be more bored by it the second time. But of course the *sound* hasn't changed at all. Yet by your logic, I've listened to two different sounds. Wrong. The experience of music is affected by things other than the physical sound signal, but it's a poor assumption to say that the physical signal can still be perceived as a whole when you've removed the experience of music. Imagine if that logic were carried over into all scientific work. Maybe you have a theory about how sounds that do not reach our brains can nonetheless affect how we experience music. If so, I'm not sure I want to hear it. Yet conventional blind testing (ABX with many quick trials for example) does not control them. Conventional tests assume that the ear/ brain works like measuring equipment. It assumes (1) we experience the same thing each time we listen, No, they don't at all. In fact, they control for this by requiring mulitple trials and/or subjects. Exactly.. they require multiple trials while not controlling what's going on inside your brain during each trial. That's the POINT. Your *brain* will quite readily 'hear' difference where *none exists*. And will also be unclear or confused when differences *do* exist. A DBT is testing not just the limits of "audibility" but the limits of confusion as well. In other words, to correctly identify X, your brain needs the proper circuitry to process the difference, but you also need clear enough conscious perception to *know* that difference exists. Quick switching, just to name one common type of DBT which is claimed to be an accurate representation of the lower limits of human sensitivity, is a great way to obscure the music in the signal. The old 'phantom switch' setup is a classic example, where literally nothing is changed, but the listener is led to believe that something has been changed. Usually they report hearing 'differnece' -- sometimes a comically large one. So, let the brain 'do' what it likes. Running the comparison 'blind' takes care of its tendency to overestimate the occurence of 'difference'. Meanwhile, with training, some tiny measurable differences -- e.g., on the order of 0.2 dB in some frequency ranges -- can be confidently shown to be discernable via DBT. Others...not so much. Which makes sense; no one should expect that all measurable differences are perceptible (whereas all perceptible differences so far, have turned out to have a measurement affected by them, indirectly if not directly). and (2) we can perceive details in sound independently of our intentions or state of mind. They don't assume this either. In fact, those conducting good DBTs go to some lengths to make sure that their subjects are in a state of mind that is conducive to detecting minute sonic differences. Right.. they have defined "minute sonic differences" as something different than perceiving music.That definition itself becomes a limiting factor in how well you can generalize the results. "perceived" difference in music, as for any sound, can occur even when the music itself is exactly the same. How do you propose to get around this fundamental problem? See my first post. I don't think anyone knows how to get around it, yet. Mike It seems to me that many of these proponents of DBT are saying one thing, but they mean another. And here, we get into the can-of-worms about "golden-ears" vs everybody else. Many "objectivists" scoff at the notion of what they call "Golden-Eared Audiophiles" and use that as a reason why many "subjectivists" don't like DBT. Their real point (and some have been skirting the issue here without actually coming right out and saying it) is that all audio equipment sounds the same and that a DBT will show, conclusively that this is so, and that people who do not like the DBT methodology for audio equipment don't like it because any blind test will prove that these "golden-ear" types can't hear any differences between the devices under test because these differences don't exist. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Peter Wieck" wrote in message If one accepts the postulate that the only true measure of any audio system is its ability to withstand the test of time in one's own listening area, then one must also accept that any previous test/ audition must accept repeats *as-necessary* to prove either *some* reliable result or *no* reliable result. This may take a great deal of time, again. The postulate that the only true measure of any audio system is its ability to withstand the test of time in one's own listening area can be questionable. For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even admit that the equipment has some serious faults. The test that is now known as the ABX test was developed by audiophiles in order to bring some order and fairness to controversies over which piece of equipment is the more sonically accurate performer. I was a party to exactly that very kind of controversy, and I developed the first test that was eventually called an ABX test in order to shed light on equipment sound quality to help resolve that controversy. That such a common result of ABX testing would be a finding of "no reliably detectible differences" was completely and totally unexpected by me. There are two ways to interpret that result, Arny: 1) That there is, indeed, no difference between the particular components under test, or 2) that whatever differences that there may be are masked either by the test methodology, the rest of the equipment being used, or that the psychological strain of being "on the hot seat" has somehow compromised the listeners' critical facilities. It seems to me that whichever of these interpretations one subscribes to will determine upon which side of the issue of the worth of DBT/ABX testing that one supports. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 20, 4:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even admit that the equipment has some serious faults. Absolute twaddle.... Actually, the term 'twaddle' embues dignity far beyond what it deserves. If they like the sound, then that is entirely all that is necessary. Sighted or otherwise, and cost entirely notwithstanding. The ancients coined a phrase "De gustibus non est disputandum". Loosly translated: There is no accounting for taste. What you think might be utter crap may be the food of multiple orgiastic pleasures to another. You have no corner on good taste, they have no corner on bad taste... either way, they like what they like and no amount of bleating and moaning or subjective whining on your part will change that. You really need to separate *your* preferences from that of others, and *what can be measured* from what people prefer to hear. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"Mike" wrote in message
On Jul 19, 3:42 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Mike" wrote in message For example, you have many choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss something else, so your intention is one condition. Ever study the topic of listener training? The changes in perception of music from repetition to repetition are not directly under conscious control. Describe a form of listener training which addresses this. You're not following the discussion. We've already debunked the idea that changes in perception from repetition to repetion are a situation that bias-controlled testing addresses well. But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption that we have the same experience each time we listen to something. Time to broaden your knowlege base, Mike. BTW you're making the most common error that people make about blind tests - they think that if they come up with some situation, it applies to only blind tests. In fact, the idea that we have the same experience each time we listen to something is one of the major weaknesses of sighted listening with few if any experimental controls. Ah.. the claim that blind testing must be valid because sighted testing isn't. Thanks for agreeing that sighted testing has very limited validity because of all of the uncontrolled variables. However nobody is making the claim that blind testing must be valid because sighted testing isn't, is you. I think they both have serious problems in regard to perception of music. I thought that we were discussing differences in the sound reproduction abilities of various pieces of equipment, not the perception of music. That's a very poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. Thank you for pointing out one of the problems that has spurred the development of bias-controlled listening tests, Mike. Ironic, isn't it, that "bias-controlled" listening doesn't control one of the largest sources of variation in perception of music? Since bias-controlled testing addresses normal variations in the perception of sound quality by statistical means, there's no need to control them out of existence. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"Mike" wrote in message
On Jul 19, 4:07 pm, bob wrote: On Jul 18, 6:51 pm, Mike wrote: I would like to discuss what assumptions one has to make about the ear/ brain to investigate it. You're the one making the assumption here--that people's perceptions change and therefore DBTs *can't* work. The problem is, they do work. They provide reliable results consistent with other knowledge. So it's your assumption that must be wrong. DBT's work for what they work at. DBTs are the gold standard for subjective testing. Any difference large enough to overcome uncontrolled effects. DBTs have been found to be an inefficient, if not *the* efficient means for making reliable and sensitive judgments about issues related to audibility. They don't control the perception of music, however. DBT procedures can overcome random variations in the perception of music. Remember that comparing equipment is about the perception of all kinds of sound, and not limited to just music. And the experience of music changes each time one listens. DBTs can easily account for this well-known effect. There's no assumption he just simple facts that in fact, we all seem to agree on. In fact, you've got the facts wrong. You write as though this were some kind of personal battle of opposing viewpoints. You write as if you think this is NOT a scientific question--a common stance for those who don't have any data on their side. It's a scientific question, but it's poor science to make generalizations about data while ignoring where that data came from. I don't see anybody ignoring where the data comes from. This must then be a straw man argument. You also seem to need things to be precisely defined in order to believe they exist. It's obvious hearing operates differently under different conditions. For example, you have many choices about _what_ to listen for, and you can easily choose one thing but miss something else, so your intention is one condition. But every blind test I'm aware of makes the assumption that we have the same experience each time we listen to something. No, they don't. They make the assumption that if you apply the same stimulus to the ear, the same signal will be sent to the brain. That's all. Wrong. No, the statement above is right. They are based on the brain being able to construct a conscious experience out of that signal. Not necessarily. DBTs don't make any assumptions about how sound is perceived, only that its perceptions have results that can be perceived. That's the only way you know what to choose. In fact DBTs put no such restrictions on how the listener pecieves. And there are vast numbers of highly distinct ways to construct an experience out of a given signal, and in fact most of those ways are not amenable to direct conscious control. All of those means are allowable in DBTs. That's a very poor assumption, and that makes the results suspect. If it's incumbent on anyone to provide proof, it's incumbent on those who do the experiments to show that they have a firm basis. This evidences a profound lack of understanding about how science works. At this point, it seems like all of the OP's initial claims have been debunked. snip I'm not "getting away from the experience of music." You're the one making the claims--and the wild assumptions--here. You're assuming, or claiming, that "experiencing music" will somehow change the sensitivity of our hearing. But you have no evidence for this. You're assuming it does not change the sensitivity, and provide no evidence for that. I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm looking at the data. And the data tells me that, if anything, "experiencing music" makes you LESS sensitive to small audible differences, not more. (Not really--at least, it's not a question of sensitivity. It's that, for various reasons, it is harder to reliably hear differences in music than in some other sounds, and it is much harder if you try to do it over an extended timeframe.) There are a lot of invalid ways to try to draw that conclusion. So what? We know how to avoid them. For example, we know that very long term listening tests are among the more difficult means for drawing conclusions about sound quality. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 20, 4:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even admit that the equipment has some serious faults. Absolute twaddle.... Actually, the term 'twaddle' embues dignity far beyond what it deserves. If they like the sound, then that is entirely all that is necessary. for what? Loosly translated: There is no accounting for taste. What you think might be utter crap may be the food of multiple orgiastic pleasures to another. You have no corner on good taste, they have no corner on bad taste... either way, they like what they like and no amount of bleating and moaning or subjective whining on your part will change that. You really need to separate *your* preferences from that of others, and *what can be measured* from what people prefer to hear. Remarkably, the entire 'high-end' industry is predicated on just the OPPOSITE stance: that there *is* a standard of good audio taste, and it separates 'high fi' from 'mid fi'. Heck, one of their house organs even calls itself *The Absolute Sound*. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
George Graves wrote:
It seems to me that many of these proponents of DBT are saying one thing, but they mean another. And here, we get into the can-of-worms about "golden-ears" vs everybody else. Many "objectivists" scoff at the notion of what they call "Golden-Eared Audiophiles" and use that as a reason why many "subjectivists" don't like DBT. Their real point (and some have been skirting the issue here without actually coming right out and saying it) is that all audio equipment sounds the same That's a gross mischaracterization of what 'their' real point is and that a DBT will show, conclusively that this is so another gross mischaracterization of what 'they' are really saying. , and that people who do not like the DBT methodology for audio equipment don't like it because any blind test will prove that these "golden-ear" types can't hear any differences between the devices under test because these differences don't exist. Likely true for some devices, likely untrue for others. Mr. Graves, your 'rebuttals' have recently been variations on 'I don't care what you say, I just know I hear these differences'; now you've moved on to the even less defensible 'Objectivists say all audio gear sounds the same'. I'm not hopeful. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Jul 21, 10:46 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Remarkably, the entire 'high-end' industry is predicated on just the OPPOSITE stance: that there *is* a standard of good audio taste, and it separates 'high fi' from 'mid fi'. Heck, one of their house organs even calls itself *The Absolute Sound*. Of course. And for the gullible well-healed this is a requirement that exceeds any need they might actually have for "good sound". But getting right down to the nitty-gritty, some individuals prefer Eggs Benedict for their breakfast, some prefer a Hostess Sno-Ball (lest you not know what I mean: http://www.freshchocodiles.com/hostess/snoballs.html ) Keep in mind that the Sno Ball crowd would (very nearly correctly) point out that Eggs Benedict may be described as an 'educated Egg- McMuffin. But if the end-user is happy with the results, whether or not anyone here might wrinkle their nose at this same result is entirely not the point. And that most of us feel secure enough not to be overly influenced by the "high-end Industry" is a continuous source of annoyance and frustration to that same industry. MY OPINION ONLY FOLLOWS: As it happens now, there are three "high end industries", one consisting of long lines of vastly over-priced, poorly made but very well packaged Chinese goods attempting to cash in on the yiches of tubes and so forth. There is the "Name Brand" section of the industry that does what it can to convince one that price actually drives quality in a linear relationship (it doesn't, of course), and then there is that part of the industry that has very nearly vanished... the actual cutting edge of wild (mostly) individuals and small groups who are actually trying to make something better and different vs. repackaging old designs with more-or-less chrome, fancy wood trim and matte-finish plexiglas detailing. 99-44/100ths percent of the stuff developed by the first two groups is sold to individuals who would not know a transistor from a triode or a toroid from a taurus. They would not understand bias, Class A, AB, AB1 and so forth other than the flash and hype sold to them in the showroom. Nor would they understand specifications with specific reference to what they *DO NOT* mean. That last 56/100ths will be purchased by those, whatever it might be, who in short order start to wonder what all the fuss is about. And in nearly equally short order, they will start to concentrate on the output from the third class of suppliers. And this class also and generally publishes their output such that a reasonably skilled and patient person might duplicate them for him or her self. And this last class is anathema to the first two groups. So, yeah, the majority industry as it is now constituted is something between a farce and a joke, about as honest as a career politician with the general ethics of an archbishop. With that in mind, none of us have the means or the right to dictate what is 'good' or 'bad' to someone else or their ears. We might wax profound on build quality, our opinion, measurements and other things, but dictate? Not hardly. So in general conversation, if someone tells me how "phenomenal" their new Wave Radio sounds and how I would "just love it" and then asks me my "real" opinion of it, I am gentle, I do not roll my eyes and I do not call them an idiot. Nor do I do any differently when another waxes poetic on their horn-loaded full-range, single-driver speakers that cost them as much as a small car (new). De Gustibus non est disputandum. Please pass the Sno-Balls. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:46:56 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Peter Wieck wrote: On Jul 20, 4:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: For example, some people will tolerate amazingly bad-sounding equipment and equipment installations for amazingly long periods of time. They may even admit that the equipment has some serious faults. Absolute twaddle.... Actually, the term 'twaddle' embues dignity far beyond what it deserves. If they like the sound, then that is entirely all that is necessary. for what? Loosly translated: There is no accounting for taste. What you think might be utter crap may be the food of multiple orgiastic pleasures to another. You have no corner on good taste, they have no corner on bad taste... either way, they like what they like and no amount of bleating and moaning or subjective whining on your part will change that. You really need to separate *your* preferences from that of others, and *what can be measured* from what people prefer to hear. Remarkably, the entire 'high-end' industry is predicated on just the OPPOSITE stance: that there *is* a standard of good audio taste, and it separates 'high fi' from 'mid fi'. Heck, one of their house organs even calls itself *The Absolute Sound*. Sure, there IS a standard for "Good Audio Taste" but it's predicated upon a fairly narrow set of criteria 1) The "Absolute Sound" refers, of course, to the sound of real, live music, played in real space (as opposed to some nebulous notion of "it sounds good"). 2) The purpose of "High-Fidelity" is to recreate, in the listener's space the sound of this "real music, played in real space" in as close an approximation as is technologically possible. 3) That this goal is the ONLY goal of High-Fidelity sound reproduction and the industry that supports it. OTOH, this is likely not the average Joe's goal at all. Many people who buy audio systems have never heard (or actually paid any attention to - or, indeed, even care about) live music. Most people's perception of live music is a rock band heard through sound reinforcement equipment and herein lies the fallacy of the above. If your goal is a system which sounds like a rock concert, then the above lofty set of goals means nothing because sound reinforcement equipment is not designed to be accurate. Of course, then we get into the area of contention which says that the sound system that a rock group uses IS that rock group's "Absolute Sound" and if one's playback system doesn't sound like the PA system that the group uses on the road, then it's not reproducing the group the way one would hear it in the flesh. Then of course, one would need a different sounding system for each rock group's recordings being played. Quite a can of worms. Listening to a live concert of real musicians playing real acoustic instruments in real space is a common experience that all can share equally. Assuming that as the criteria for establishing goals for an industry striving to make equipment to reproduce music seems a logical course. After all, a rigid set of criteria for any endeavor is needed, if for no other reason than to be a point of departure. Remember, a man walking in a blinding snow storm which deprives him of references will ALWAYS walk in circles. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:40:23 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): On Jul 21, 10:46 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Remarkably, the entire 'high-end' industry is predicated on just the OPPOSITE stance: that there *is* a standard of good audio taste, and it separates 'high fi' from 'mid fi'. Heck, one of their house organs even calls itself *The Absolute Sound*. Of course. And for the gullible well-healed this is a requirement that exceeds any need they might actually have for "good sound". But getting right down to the nitty-gritty, some individuals prefer Eggs Benedict for their breakfast, some prefer a Hostess Sno-Ball (lest you not know what I mean: http://www.freshchocodiles.com/hostess/snoballs.html Keep in mind that the Sno Ball crowd would (very nearly correctly) point out that Eggs Benedict may be described as an 'educated Egg- McMuffin. But if the end-user is happy with the results, whether or not anyone here might wrinkle their nose at this same result is entirely not the point. And that most of us feel secure enough not to be overly influenced by the "high-end Industry" is a continuous source of annoyance and frustration to that same industry. MY OPINION ONLY FOLLOWS: As it happens now, there are three "high end industries", one consisting of long lines of vastly over-priced, poorly made but very well packaged Chinese goods attempting to cash in on the yiches of tubes and so forth. There is the "Name Brand" section of the industry that does what it can to convince one that price actually drives quality in a linear relationship (it doesn't, of course), and then there is that part of the industry that has very nearly vanished... the actual cutting edge of wild (mostly) individuals and small groups who are actually trying to make something better and different vs. repackaging old designs with more-or-less chrome, fancy wood trim and matte-finish plexiglas detailing. 99-44/100ths percent of the stuff developed by the first two groups is sold to individuals who would not know a transistor from a triode or a toroid from a taurus. They would not understand bias, Class A, AB, AB1 and so forth other than the flash and hype sold to them in the showroom. Nor would they understand specifications with specific reference to what they *DO NOT* mean. That last 56/100ths will be purchased by those, whatever it might be, who in short order start to wonder what all the fuss is about. And in nearly equally short order, they will start to concentrate on the output from the third class of suppliers. And this class also and generally publishes their output such that a reasonably skilled and patient person might duplicate them for him or her self. And this last class is anathema to the first two groups. So, yeah, the majority industry as it is now constituted is something between a farce and a joke, about as honest as a career politician with the general ethics of an archbishop. With that in mind, none of us have the means or the right to dictate what is 'good' or 'bad' to someone else or their ears. We might wax profound on build quality, our opinion, measurements and other things, but dictate? Not hardly. So in general conversation, if someone tells me how "phenomenal" their new Wave Radio sounds and how I would "just love it" and then asks me my "real" opinion of it, I am gentle, I do not roll my eyes and I do not call them an idiot. Nor do I do any differently when another waxes poetic on their horn-loaded full-range, single-driver speakers that cost them as much as a small car (new). De Gustibus non est disputandum. Please pass the Sno-Balls. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA The only important criterion for the Hi-Fi industry should be: does it sound like real music played in real space, and if not, what is the difference? A corollary to this would be "of these two components, which sounds the most like the real thing?" After all, the word High-Fidelity itself means a high degree of faithfulness. Faithful to what? There must be a "what", you know, otherwise the the entire endeavor is fruitless. Also at what point does the degree of faithfulness become "high enough" to be classified as high-fidelity as opposed to low-fidelity, or middling-fidelity? I'm merely trying to point out here that an industry/hobby which has no goals is traveling in circles and it seems to me that the modern audio community has completely abandoned it's original goals in favor of a general "if it sounds good" anarchy. Also, a large portion of the industry has gone-off chasing the wealthy dilettante, abandoning the enthusiast market completely. As an example of the above, I know a guy who owned a very nice audio emporium in this area who told me one time that he can make his entire month's income by just selling and installing one extremely expensive system in one millionaire's home. He said that since he found that out, he no longer had to put up with audiophiles and their budgets and their listening for hours just to buy one piece of gear per year. True to his perception, he closed his storefront and became an "audio/video consultant" to the wealthy. There are plenty of them around here too (Silicon Valley, CA), so I suspect that he's doing well. Let's hope, for his sake, that there is an endless supply of millionaires needing complete new systems, because few if any are repeat customers. They buy the most expensive so that they can brag about how much the system costs, and that's just about their total interest in it. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"George Graves" wrote in message
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:51:34 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:55:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message What's interesting is that when we "subjective testers" get together, we all seem to find the same characteristics for the same equipment, even though we all came by these "sonic signatures" independently of one another on our own systems. True, that subjective reviewers tend to draw their descriptive words and phrases from a relatively small pool, and there's a tendency for subjective reviews to all sound the same. Nice rationalization, No, fact. but you're overlooking something. If I say that a certain pre-amp has a sandpaper-like dryness in the upper octaves as opposed to being syruppy, or dark, or grainy, and other subjective reviewers come to the same conclusion independently, then, it would almost have to follow that this particular component, does, indeed, exhibit that characteristic, would it not? If the meanings of these words were standardized, and independent tests with known distortions showed that reviewers used words consistently and reliably, and if it were known that reviewers operated completely independently, then maybe. How would one know that? Good question. Since we don't know these things, we don't have any reason to trust the poetic words written by reviewers. Most of the things that people hear have never been quantified. That is simply not true. Hell, that's why subjective reviewing started in the first place. It is true that when subjective reviewing started over 50 years ago, we did not understand as much about audibility as we do now. However, there's no need to presume that our understanding of these things hasn't improved dramatically since then. Equipment got to the point where it all measured the same, yet sounded different. This is a myth. Obviously, somebody wasn't measuring the right things. Revisionist history. Eventually new types of distortion where quantified and ways were found to measure them, but more importantly, design methodologies were developed to largely eliminate many of these "new distortions". No new forms of distortion have been discovered in the past 50 years. It was found, for instance that large amounts of overall feedback in solid-state amplifiers caused something called transient intermodulation distortion (TIM). TIM has been debunked. Tim turned out to be a special case of nonlinear distortion. It is also possible to have TIM without loop feedback. Now the standard practice is to design amps without overall feedback loops, but to rather, use only stage-by-stage feedback, and some designers have found ways to use none at all. This is false. I can show any number of schematics of modern power amplifiers that retain loop feedback. Slew-Induced Distortion (SID) was first identified and then tamed by using solid-state active devices which switched must faster and had a much higher gain bandwidth than what was being used before. Wrong. SID and TIM are different words for essentially the same thing. SID was debunked the same as TIM. Presenting them as being different things is an error. Presenting them as being meaninful today is backwards. Distortion generated by passive components was, until about 20 years ago, unheard of until it was found that certain types of dielectric materials in capacitors held onto "old" signals long after the event that generated them had ended, only to "leak" those by now uncorrelated signals on top of signals currently being passed by the capacitor. This has been known about for at least 50 years. It is very old news. The means for managing it have been well-known for at least 40 years. This phenomenon, now known as dielectric absorption distortion is now mitigated by using dielectric materials that have low absorption properties like polypropylene and polystyrene. But amplifying devices still sound different from one another, so there are still non-linear properties of these devices that we don't understand. This is false on several counts. DA does not cause nonlinear distortion. Its effects on audio have been debunked for something like 5-10 years by Robert Pease of National Semiconductors, among others. There are forms of nonlinear distoriton that are due to certain capacitor dielectrics, but do not relate to film capacitors. Maybe someday, amplifiers will become what Stewart Hegeman once characterized as "a straight wire, with gain" and subjective testing won't be needed any more for electronics, but we aren't there yet - not even close! This is incorrect. It is relatively easy to do "straight wire bypass testing" that shows that many modern power amplifiers are subjectively speaking, "stright wires with gain". However, high end audio reviewing seems to be a very incestuous business, and reviewers seem to be very interested in what other reviewers say about the equipment they review. This has been particularly true since the advent of the Internet. Actually, that would seem to your own skeptical paranoia at work. No, it is poor information being mistakenly taken for fact, as I have detailed above. I know many of the better regarded reviewers, have worked with many of them and regard not a few as my friends. Speaks to potentical prejudice and bias. They try hard to be honest and forthright with their opinions and none would think of writing anything that they hadn't experienced with their own ears (I certainly know that I don't) and I think, that overall, they succeed admirably. In many cases I don't doubt their good intentions. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"George Graves" wrote in message
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): The test that is now known as the ABX test was developed by audiophiles in order to bring some order and fairness to controversies over which piece of equipment is the more sonically accurate performer. I was a party to exactly that very kind of controversy, and I developed the first test that was eventually called an ABX test in order to shed light on equipment sound quality to help resolve that controversy. That such a common result of ABX testing would be a finding of "no reliably detectible differences" was completely and totally unexpected by me. There are two ways to interpret that result, Arny: 1) That there is, indeed, no difference between the particular components under test, This alternative has been found to be faulty, because indeed, all equipment is different. Even the various channels of equipment with as few as two channels can be found to measure at least somewhat differently from each other. or 2) that whatever differences that there may be are masked either by the test methodology, the rest of the equipment being used, or that the psychological strain of being "on the hot seat" has somehow compromised the listeners' critical facilities. All of these alternatives have been carefully addressed. (1) The effects of associated equipment have been addressed by a number of different means. (1a) The associated components have been selected to among the finest components known to exist over a period of about 30 years. During this period of time, the perceived quality of all forms of components have greatly improved. (1b) The associated components used have been minimized by various means so that only a very few components have been parts of test systems. (2) Psychological strain during listening tests have been minimized by various means. (2a) The strain of working with unfamiliar equipment and recprdings has been minimized by using existing home systems and familiar recordings. (2b) The potential strain of listening using short selections has been minimized by doing long term listening tests. (2c) The strain of listening for long periods of time has been minimized by doing listening tests over a period of several days with extensive resting periods. (2d) The strain of performing with others present has ben minimized by allowing people to do their own tests by themselves. (2e) Various relaxation techniques have been used during listening sessions. It seems to me that whichever of these interpretations one subscribes to will determine upon which side of the issue of the worth of DBT/ABX testing that one supports. In addition the same tests have been on occasion repeated using different listening test methodologies, including same/different, ABC/hr, a test called ABX that is used by people researching hearing that is in fact a different test, testing methodologies used in the foods industry, etc. The results of all verifiable listening test methodologies tend to be very similar. If there are differences, the ABX test we origionated tends to be the most sensitive for hearing differences. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
MY OPINION ONLY FOLLOWS: As it happens now, there are three "high end industries", one consisting of long lines of vastly over-priced, poorly made but very well packaged Chinese goods attempting to cash in on the yiches of tubes and so forth. Agreed. There is the "Name Brand" section of the industry that does what it can to convince one that price actually drives quality in a linear relationship (it doesn't, of course), Agreed, but it may overlap industry number one. and then there is that part of the industry that has very nearly vanished... the actual cutting edge of wild (mostly) individuals and small groups who are actually trying to make something better and different vs. repackaging old designs with more-or-less chrome, fancy wood trim and matte-finish plexiglas detailing. Also agreed. 99-44/100ths percent of the stuff developed by the first two groups is sold to individuals who would not know a transistor from a triode or a toroid from a taurus. Interestingly enough, some of them think that they are extremely well-educated. As I showed for example in another post where someone tried to pontificate expertly about Slew Rate Distortion and Dielectric Absorbtion, their knowlege is often obsolete, based on that which has been proven to be urban myth, or they just plain have things wrong. They would not understand bias, Class A, AB, AB1 and so forth other than the flash and hype sold to them in the showroom. Nor would they understand specifications with specific reference to what they *DO NOT* mean. Also agreed. That last 56/100ths will be purchased by those, whatever it might be, who in short order start to wonder what all the fuss is about. And in nearly equally short order, they will start to concentrate on the output from the third class of suppliers. And this class also and generally publishes their output such that a reasonably skilled and patient person might duplicate them for him or her self. And this last class is anathema to the first two groups. I call this the "High Performance Audio" segment of the market. These people are often well enough heeled, and tend to own high performance cars, high performance cameras, guns and other techno-esoterica. While they may have signficiant investments in audio, they don't seem to gravitate to the most expensive components, with the possible exception of loudspeakers. So, yeah, the majority industry as it is now constituted is something between a farce and a joke, about as honest as a career politician with the general ethics of an archbishop. Some who have posted on this thread have even mentioned some of the high priests of high farce audio. With that in mind, none of us have the means or the right to dictate what is 'good' or 'bad' to someone else or their ears. I don't find that this follows from the premises presented. We might wax profound on build quality, our opinion, measurements and other things, but dictate? The choice of the word dictate may constitute the exclusion of a rich range of middle choices. So in general conversation, if someone tells me how "phenomenal" their new Wave Radio sounds and how I would "just love it" and then asks me my "real" opinion of it, I am gentle, I do not roll my eyes and I do not call them an idiot. Posession of even just mediocre personal social and rhetorical skills suggests a more polite and effective course of action. Nor do I do any differently when another waxes poetic on their horn-loaded full-range, single-driver speakers that cost them as much as a small car (new). De Gustibus non est disputandum. No accounting for taste, right? Please pass the Sno-Balls. Agreed, there are times when a Sno-Ball or Twinkie can hit the spot. But a slice of well-made kosher sponge cake topped with freshly whipped cream has its charms, as a higher-end alternative to a Twinkie. I believe the composite is not Kosher, though (for those to whom it may concern!) |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"George Graves" wrote in message
The only important criterion for the Hi-Fi industry should be: does it sound like real music played in real space, and if not, what is the difference? If you understand the reproduction of music, this is currently an impossible goal. A corollary to this would be "of these two components, which sounds the most like the real thing?" This general goal can be abstracted to: "Can this component pass a straight-wire bypass test" (If such a test is relevant and possible for the particular kind of component). After all, the word High-Fidelity itself means a high degree of faithfulness. Agreed. Faithful to what? There must be a "what", you know, otherwise the the entire endeavor is fruitless. Agreed. The usual "what" is a live performance, but there are some hidden gotchas in there. Also at what point does the degree of faithfulness become "high enough" to be classified as high-fidelity as opposed to low-fidelity, or middling-fidelity? The highest reasoanble standard would seem to be "indistiguishable from the origional". I'm merely trying to point out here that an industry/hobby which has no goals is traveling in circles Agreed. and it seems to me that the modern audio community has completely abandoned it's original goals in favor of a general "if it sounds good" anarchy. Agreed. Also, a large portion of the industry has gone-off chasing the wealthy dilettante, abandoning the enthusiast market completely. Agreed. As an example of the above, I know a guy who owned a very nice audio emporium in this area who told me one time that he can make his entire month's income by just selling and installing one extremely expensive system in one millionaire's home. Word has it that millionaires of that kind are going into short supply. He said that since he found that out, he no longer had to put up with audiophiles and their budgets and their listening for hours just to buy one piece of gear per year. I've seen this sort of thing up front and personal, during my own (relatively brief) buying sessions at high end audio stores. True to his perception, he closed his storefront and became an "audio/video consultant" to the wealthy. There are plenty of them around here too (Silicon Valley, CA), so I suspect that he's doing well. Perhaps. Let's hope, for his sake, that there is an endless supply of millionaires needing complete new systems, because few if any are repeat customers. They buy the most expensive so that they can brag about how much the system costs, and that's just about their total interest in it. A few of them are IME true and genuine audiophiles. Ostentatious purchases are for the new and foolish rich. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
"George Graves" wrote in message
It seems to me that many of these proponents of DBT are saying one thing, but they mean another. Examples? Note change of topic And here, we get into the can-of-worms about "golden-ears" vs everybody else. Many "objectivists" scoff at the notion of what they call "Golden-Eared Audiophiles" and use that as a reason why many "subjectivists" don't like DBT. Doesn't seem to follow. How can someone use their own scoffing of someone for an explanation for that someone's behavior? I'll admit it, the behavior of some audiophiles seems to me to be based on their own lack of relevant knowlege. It's often easy to find holes in their statements that are big enough to drive a big truck through. Almost every audiophile I've seen scoffing at DBTs has never done a proper DBT for themselves, for example. Head of the pack are the very few audiophile journalists, most who have never documented a DBT themselves. The few who do try to do some kind of bias-controlled tests don't follow established procedures and end up making some embarassing mistakes. Their real point (and some have been skirting the issue here without actually coming right out and saying it) is that all audio equipment sounds the same and that a DBT will show, conclusively that this is so, and that people who do not like the DBT methodology for audio equipment don't like it because any blind test will prove that these "golden-ear" types can't hear any differences between the devices under test because these differences don't exist. That's the usual false accusation in a nutshell. The observableort the conclusion that a certain amount of equipment sounds differernt, but that there are a lot less actual audible differences between equipment than are reported by home listeners and in the audiophile press such as TAS and SP. Most of the differences that people claim to hear is due to the fact that they don't follow good basic experimental design, which involves doing tests where the quantity of independent variables is minimized, and the few actual independent variables are varied strategically. Most audiophile tests don't even involve simple controls like level matching. So, of course everything sounds different - it is playing at audibly different levels. Most audiopile tests don't carefully match the portion of the test reocording that is used for the evaluation. So of course, everything sounds different - its playing different music. Most audiophile tests don't conceal the identity of the equipment that is playing during the test, so of course it sounds different - they've just heard sales pitches and read magazine articles and web messages that say it sounds different. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:14:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "George Graves" wrote in message The only important criterion for the Hi-Fi industry should be: does it sound like real music played in real space, and if not, what is the difference? If you understand the reproduction of music, this is currently an impossible goal. Of course, it's an impossible goal. It's an "Ideal", something to strive for, but always out of reach. A corollary to this would be "of these two components, which sounds the most like the real thing?" This general goal can be abstracted to: "Can this component pass a straight-wire bypass test" (If such a test is relevant and possible for the particular kind of component). How can one "straight wire" an entire system? Amplifiers, sure, but CD players? Record decks? Speakers? After all, the word High-Fidelity itself means a high degree of faithfulness. Agreed. Faithful to what? There must be a "what", you know, otherwise the the entire endeavor is fruitless. Agreed. The usual "what" is a live performance, but there are some hidden gotchas in there. Also at what point does the degree of faithfulness become "high enough" to be classified as high-fidelity as opposed to low-fidelity, or middling-fidelity? The highest reasoanble standard would seem to be "indistiguishable from the origional". Agreed. I'm merely trying to point out here that an industry/hobby which has no goals is traveling in circles Agreed. and it seems to me that the modern audio community has completely abandoned it's original goals in favor of a general "if it sounds good" anarchy. Agreed. Also, a large portion of the industry has gone-off chasing the wealthy dilettante, abandoning the enthusiast market completely. Agreed. As an example of the above, I know a guy who owned a very nice audio emporium in this area who told me one time that he can make his entire month's income by just selling and installing one extremely expensive system in one millionaire's home. Word has it that millionaires of that kind are going into short supply. He said that since he found that out, he no longer had to put up with audiophiles and their budgets and their listening for hours just to buy one piece of gear per year. I've seen this sort of thing up front and personal, during my own (relatively brief) buying sessions at high end audio stores. True to his perception, he closed his storefront and became an "audio/video consultant" to the wealthy. There are plenty of them around here too (Silicon Valley, CA), so I suspect that he's doing well. Perhaps. Let's hope, for his sake, that there is an endless supply of millionaires needing complete new systems, because few if any are repeat customers. They buy the most expensive so that they can brag about how much the system costs, and that's just about their total interest in it. A few of them are IME true and genuine audiophiles. Ostentatious purchases are for the new and foolish rich. Perhaps, but in this area most of the rich fall into that latter category. Like an ex-client of mine. Has a half-million dollar audio system in the "music room" of his new 5000 sq ft. two-story home built on a 3000 Sq ft, lot ... Owns a half dozen CDs. Period. All 'Seventies R&R. Also has a Bosendorfer 9ft Concert Grand in said "music room". NOBODY in the house plays piano or takes lessons. To my knowledge it's never touched (except when the tuner comes to tune it). Talk about ostentation. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Blind testing: the epistemology
George Graves wrote:
It seems to me that many of these proponents of DBT are saying one thing, but they mean another. And here, we get into the can-of-worms about "golden-ears" vs everybody else. Many "objectivists" scoff at the notion of what they call "Golden-Eared Audiophiles" and use that as a reason why many "subjectivists" don't like DBT. Their real point (and some have been skirting the issue here without actually coming right out and saying it) is that all audio equipment sounds the same and that a DBT will show, conclusively that this is so, and that people who do not like the DBT methodology for audio equipment don't like it because any blind test will prove that these "golden-ear" types can't hear any differences between the devices under test because these differences don't exist. Wow. You like really *wasted* that strawman. I mean, I've got straw all over me now. Hope you're happy. First: it is most certianly not the point that "all audio equipment sounds the same". I have never heard anyone claim that. Cite please? Second: DBT cannot establish that there is no difference . DBT can try to establish that there is a difference, and if no difference is established the most that can be said is that the "test failed to detect a difference". A subtle, but important distinction. Third: the reason why objectivists scoff at some "golden-eared audiophiles" is that the differences that they claim to be readily apparent and blatantly obvious mysteriously fail to manifest themselves when the reviewer doesn't know which component he's listening to. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Note the use of the word "some" in point three. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Blind Testing - Some Further Thoughts | Audio Opinions | |||
double-blind testing | High End Audio | |||
Blind testing and audio enjoyment | Tech | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Equation for blind testing? | Audio Opinions |