| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
anyone in LA want to help me do a blind test?
I live in Pasadena, CA. I'm interested in doing blind tests on
interconnect cables, using a long-listening protocol rather than a quick switching protocol. I've already done 12 trials and scored 9/12 correct- not statistically significant yet, but I'm learning under what conditions I perform better, so there is still a chance I could reach a statistically significant positive result. Unfortunately these tests take a while and I've lost the help of my prior assistant. If you want to help, I'd also help you with blind tests in trade. Anyone interested? If so, don't reply to this email. It is a free account to receive spam. Reply to mpm At alumni Dot caltech Dot edu -Mike PS. or post here |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
I live in Pasadena also. Sounds like a fun project--fraught with the
possibility of frustration. Oh, boy! Feel free to e-mail me at . Cheers, Bernie |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a
long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). ---MIKE--- |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
---MIKE--- wrote:
I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). ---MIKE--- You might be right, but I need to do the test to find out. -Other Mike |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
... I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). ---MIKE--- The atmospheric pressure, humidity, state of your sinuses, etc., should all be uncorrelated with which of the two cables being compared is in use. So those random variables should not invalidate a long enough series of tests with a significant deviation from chance. I'm not a "believer" in high end cable myself but I'm all in favor of tests like this being done. After all, I've been wrong about things before. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
---MIKE--- wrote:
I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). While Michael does say he uses a "long-listening protocol" rather than a "quick switching protocol", he does not define these terms. It isn't possible to know if he only listens to one pair of cables per hour, per day, or per week. As such, we can't assume environmental or internal variables would significantly alter the outcome. Even switching cables once per hour can "take a while" if one is trying to complete exhaustive tests. Even *if* environmental or internal changes alter perceptions of sound, these variables are constantly changing and could impact equally upon "quick switch" protocols provided the research took place across a period of days, weeks or months. In fact, changes in mood or blowing one's nose too hard can occur during research taking place in the course of a single afternoon. The key issue isn't whether there are variables that can alter outcome/value of the dependent variable. The issue is how those variables are distributed through the study (i.e. randomly vs. non-randomly). When environmental and internal variables are viewed in that light, the results of even the fabled quick-switch/double-blind model can be tainted. -Scott |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
John P. Green wrote:
"---MIKE---" wrote in message ... I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). ---MIKE--- The atmospheric pressure, humidity, state of your sinuses, etc., should all be uncorrelated with which of the two cables being compared is in use. So those random variables should not invalidate a long enough series of tests with a significant deviation from chance. I'm not a "believer" in high end cable myself but I'm all in favor of tests like this being done. After all, I've been wrong about things before. I'm not sure myself about high-end cables. I tend to doubt they do anything. However, a few years ago I listened carefully and thought they were doing something. Was I imagining this? I did an informal blind test with the help of a friend, which involved several five minute listening sessions to cables. Every four sessions was either ABAB or ABBA, unknown to me. We did 16 sessions which gave me four chances to guess the order ABAB or ABBA. I guessed right all four times. Not only that, but I was quite confident that I knew what I was hearing. But four trials is not enough to be statiscally sound. Last year I had another friend help me in a similar test. I did eight trials. This time I got five right and three wrong, which isn't very promising. Furthermore, in the last trial I was absolutely confident I knew which cable I was hearing, and I was wrong. It showed me how strong expectation bias can be. But I still wonder if I was just tired. After all, each trial involved four listening sessions, so that was 32 sessions, or about five or six hours of real time to get through all that. So I want to do some more tests. -Mike |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote: I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). While Michael does say he uses a "long-listening protocol" rather than a "quick switching protocol", he does not define these terms. It isn't possible to know if he only listens to one pair of cables per hour, per day, or per week. As such, we can't assume environmental or internal variables would significantly alter the outcome. Even switching cables once per hour can "take a while" if one is trying to complete exhaustive tests. Even *if* environmental or internal changes alter perceptions of sound, these variables are constantly changing and could impact equally upon "quick switch" protocols provided the research took place across a period of days, weeks or months. In fact, changes in mood or blowing one's nose too hard can occur during research taking place in the course of a single afternoon. The key issue isn't whether there are variables that can alter outcome/value of the dependent variable. The issue is how those variables are distributed through the study (i.e. randomly vs. non-randomly). When environmental and internal variables are viewed in that light, the results of even the fabled quick-switch/double-blind model can be tainted. -Scott That might make more sense if the listeners claimed to be able to hear the difference on some days and not others. But in most if not all ABX/DBT, the listener *does* claim to hear a difernece *during the test*. IN an ABX, the listener basically *has* to report 'hearing' a difference between A and B -- that is, during the 'sighted' portion of the test; otherwise the test is meaningless -- it's just guessing in the literal sense. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote: I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). While Michael does say he uses a "long-listening protocol" rather than a "quick switching protocol", he does not define these terms. It isn't possible to know if he only listens to one pair of cables per hour, per day, or per week. As such, we can't assume environmental or internal variables would significantly alter the outcome. Even switching cables once per hour can "take a while" if one is trying to complete exhaustive tests. Even *if* environmental or internal changes alter perceptions of sound, these variables are constantly changing and could impact equally upon "quick switch" protocols provided the research took place across a period of days, weeks or months. In fact, changes in mood or blowing one's nose too hard can occur during research taking place in the course of a single afternoon. The key issue isn't whether there are variables that can alter outcome/value of the dependent variable. The issue is how those variables are distributed through the study (i.e. randomly vs. non-randomly). When environmental and internal variables are viewed in that light, the results of even the fabled quick-switch/double-blind model can be tainted. -Scott As a kind of similar point, I've also thought that the kind of quick switch test that switches *while the music is in progress* is nonsense. The idea is that you are supposed to tell if you hear a change right at the moment you switch--well of course you hear a change, because the music itself is changing! To clarify my intended protocol (and the same one I've used in past tests) : I listen for about five minutes to each cable, enough time to settle in and hear it at music. I don't try to compare cables directly--I'm not comparing "what I hear now" to my memory--but instead I'm just taking notes on my current musical experience without trying to think too much about which cable it is. I ask that my assistant do four trials, hooking up the cables in the order ABAB, ABBA, BABA, or BAAB. This means that I'm getting a good sense of contrast through the four trials--at least twice the cable switches to the other one. My job after the four trials is to guess whether the middle two were the same or different. I've done twelve trials overall, but in two separate periods with vastly different equipment and setup. 4/4 in the first set, and 5/8 in the second set. "Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests" because they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right next" (the sound placed in time, that is) to another one. But this doesn't represent how people actually listen to music, or how they enjoy it. After all, if a piece of audio equipment is beautiful-sounding, (or a violin is, or a piano is, or a string quartet is), then it sounds beautiful "on its own." You don't need to put it right next to something else to be able to hear the beauty. Likewise, if a piece of audio equipment has some sort of character--if it is either ugly or beautiful--it should sound that way after you've settled in with it. It shouldn't be necessary to compare the sound to something else to determine this, and it fact I think that contrast tests obscure differences because they prevent the listener from settling in and hearing a piece of music, over its natural span of time, hearing it as actual *music*. -Mike |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
I'm not sure myself about high-end cables. I tend to doubt they do anything. However, a few years ago I listened carefully and thought they were doing something. Was I imagining this? I did an informal blind test with the help of a friend, which involved several five minute listening sessions to cables. Every four sessions was either ABAB or ABBA, unknown to me. We did 16 sessions which gave me four chances to guess the order ABAB or ABBA. I guessed right all four times. Not only that, but I was quite confident that I knew what I was hearing. But four trials is not enough to be statiscally sound. Last year I had another friend help me in a similar test. I did eight trials. This time I got five right and three wrong, Ah, then your earlier assertion that you'd gotten 9 out of 12 correct was statistically irrelevant. You cannot just add up the results of different tests as you go along. You generally need to decide in advance how many trials you are going to do (and how many correct you are shooting for). Besides, you described this as "a similar test." If it was not exacly the same test--same cables, system, room, protocol--there would be no comparison at all between the two. which isn't very promising. Furthermore, in the last trial I was absolutely confident I knew which cable I was hearing, and I was wrong. It showed me how strong expectation bias can be. Yeah, ain't it the truth. But I still wonder if I was just tired. After all, each trial involved four listening sessions, so that was 32 sessions, or about five or six hours of real time to get through all that. I would think fatigue would make you less confident about what you were hearing, not more, but it's possible. Next time, don't try to do it all in a single day. So I want to do some more tests. Some questions: --what cables (and length)? --what system? --did you level-match, and how? --did you also try doing a quick-switching test for comparison? bob |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
... But four trials is not enough to be statiscally sound. Last year I had another friend help me in a similar test. I did eight trials. This time I got five right and three wrong, which isn't very promising. Furthermore, in the last trial I was absolutely confident I knew which cable I was hearing, and I was wrong. It showed me how strong expectation bias can be. But I still wonder if I was just tired. After all, each trial involved four listening sessions, so that was 32 sessions, or about five or six hours of real time to get through all that. So I want to do some more tests. Even if you can tell the difference, if it requires this amount of careful test listening to discern differences, is it worth the cost? When I listen to music I like to forget about everything else and simply enjoy the trip. Tests of the kind you wish to conduct appear interesting enough (for young folks with young hearing) engaging in the audio hobby trip, but not the enjoying the music trip. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
Scott wrote: ---MIKE--- wrote: I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). While Michael does say he uses a "long-listening protocol" rather than a "quick switching protocol", he does not define these terms. It isn't possible to know if he only listens to one pair of cables per hour, per day, or per week. As such, we can't assume environmental or internal variables would significantly alter the outcome. Even switching cables once per hour can "take a while" if one is trying to complete exhaustive tests. Even *if* environmental or internal changes alter perceptions of sound, these variables are constantly changing and could impact equally upon "quick switch" protocols provided the research took place across a period of days, weeks or months. In fact, changes in mood or blowing one's nose too hard can occur during research taking place in the course of a single afternoon. The key issue isn't whether there are variables that can alter outcome/value of the dependent variable. The issue is how those variables are distributed through the study (i.e. randomly vs. non-randomly). When environmental and internal variables are viewed in that light, the results of even the fabled quick-switch/double-blind model can be tainted. -Scott As a kind of similar point, I've also thought that the kind of quick switch test that switches *while the music is in progress* is nonsense. The idea is that you are supposed to tell if you hear a change right at the moment you switch--well of course you hear a change, because the music itself is changing! To clarify my intended protocol (and the same one I've used in past tests) : I listen for about five minutes to each cable, enough time to settle in and hear it at music. I don't try to compare cables directly--I'm not comparing "what I hear now" to my memory--but instead I'm just taking notes on my current musical experience without trying to think too much about which cable it is. I ask that my assistant do four trials, hooking up the cables in the order ABAB, ABBA, BABA, or BAAB. This means that I'm getting a good sense of contrast through the four trials--at least twice the cable switches to the other one. My job after the four trials is to guess whether the middle two were the same or different. I've done twelve trials overall, but in two separate periods with vastly different equipment and setup. 4/4 in the first set, and 5/8 in the second set. "Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests" because they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right next" (the sound placed in time, that is) to another one. But this doesn't represent how people actually listen to music, or how they enjoy it. After all, if a piece of audio equipment is beautiful-sounding, (or a violin is, or a piano is, or a string quartet is), then it sounds beautiful "on its own." You don't need to put it right next to something else to be able to hear the beauty. Likewise, if a piece of audio equipment has some sort of character--if it is either ugly or beautiful--it should sound that way after you've settled in with it. It shouldn't be necessary to compare the sound to something else to determine this, and it fact I think that contrast tests obscure differences because they prevent the listener from settling in and hearing a piece of music, over its natural span of time, hearing it as actual *music*. -Mike As a control, can you also ask your assistant to use a sequence that is different than the 4 you have shown? You only want to find out if the middle two are the same or different, so I do not see why you need to limit the number of possible sequences to those 4. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
As a kind of similar point, I've also thought that the kind of quick switch test that switches *while the music is in progress* is nonsense. You are entitled to your opinion. But there is good scientific evidence that you are wrong. The idea is that you are supposed to tell if you hear a change right at the moment you switch--well of course you hear a change, because the music itself is changing! A case for using minimalist drone in DBTs. To clarify my intended protocol (and the same one I've used in past tests) : I listen for about five minutes to each cable, enough time to settle in and hear it at music. I don't try to compare cables directly--I'm not comparing "what I hear now" to my memory--but instead I'm just taking notes on my current musical experience without trying to think too much about which cable it is. I ask that my assistant do four trials, hooking up the cables in the order ABAB, ABBA, BABA, or BAAB. This means that I'm getting a good sense of contrast through the four trials--at least twice the cable switches to the other one. My job after the four trials is to guess whether the middle two were the same or different. This protocol doesn't make a lot of sense, actually. What you are doing is a standard same-different test, with two extra segments that are useless (since you already know they are different from the segments adjacent to them). I would suggest instead that you simply do a same-different test, AA or AB (you could alternate or randomize which cable is A), and allow yourself to listen more than once to each. This should improve the sensitivity of your test. One thing that's very important in a same-different test, by the way, is that you have an equal number of same and different trials. That's another reason you need to decide on the number of trials in advance. I've done twelve trials overall, but in two separate periods with vastly different equipment and setup. 4/4 in the first set, and 5/8 in the second set. "Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests" because they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right next" (the sound placed in time, that is) to another one. And yet you described your test above as giving you "a good sense of contrast." You are playing with words here. Contrast is exactly what we are trying to determine. But this doesn't represent how people actually listen to music, or how they enjoy it. True, but you are not trying to measure enjoyment. You are trying to measure contrast--as you yourself said! After all, if a piece of audio equipment is beautiful-sounding, (or a violin is, or a piano is, or a string quartet is), then it sounds beautiful "on its own." You don't need to put it right next to something else to be able to hear the beauty. Likewise, if a piece of audio equipment has some sort of character--if it is either ugly or beautiful--it should sound that way after you've settled in with it. It shouldn't be necessary to compare the sound to something else to determine this, and it fact I think that contrast tests obscure differences because they prevent the listener from settling in and hearing a piece of music, over its natural span of time, hearing it as actual *music*. Such is your hypothesis. All available evidence suggests you are wrong, but if you think otherwise you should definitely test it. bob |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was trying to have a balanced variety of conditions. But as Bob
says, it may be better to do a same/different test. -Mike |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Norman,
You are speaking right to the dilemma. We want to test as a way of learning what's true. What equipment brings maximum enjoyment? We want objective evidence of that. But testing is usually an unnatural environment. I'm trying to find a way to reconcile this. The "objectivists" on rahe as far as I can see don't attempt to reconcile it at all. -Mike |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
wrote: Michael Mossey wrote: "Quick switch" tests should be also called "contrast tests" because they emphasize how one piece of equipment sounds "placed right next" (the sound placed in time, that is) to another one. And yet you described your test above as giving you "a good sense of contrast." You are playing with words here. Contrast is exactly what we are trying to determine. Not playing with words, Bob. I just didn't word this carefully. Actually these concepts I'm trying to describe are pretty deep. That's one thing I've noticed about "objectivists" like you--the world is much more black-and-white to you. Only parts of it, and we are careful to keep the discrete and the continuous separate. I am suggesting that you are failing to do this, and that your fuzzy language was symptomatic of that. If you find an apparent contradiction in my words, you assume that's a flaw to the core, instead of thinking carefully about what I might mean. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean. It's a concept that's been batted around here before. I just think you're wrong. One possible way to describe this is "conscious contrast" versus "unconscious contrast." A quick-switch test uses conscious contrast--the listener is actually trying to hear a difference, or even if not, they can't escape noticing the moment of switch. I was attempting to introduce unconscious contrast. That is, I was listening by noting what I heard, taking each experience on its own--so no emphasis on contrast in the listening. But I still wanted to have a test that varied the conditions frequently, to "clear the palete" as it were. There was no need for me to focus on changes, but let them work in the background to change what came to my attention. Surely you would agree that there is something counterintuitive about the claim that we are more likely to hear differences between things if we do not try to hear differences between them. And before you object tht this isn't what you said, I will agree that it isn't what you said. But I would argue that what you actually said reduces to this. Nonetheless, I have already agreed that while I think your "unconscious contrast" hypothesis is implausible, it's at least thoughtfully rendered, and I hope you are successful in testing it. Anyway, the world isn't black-and-white. Contrast isn't evil. It can be simultaneously true that a quick-switch test is doomed by its emphasis on contrast, while contrast is still important. But this doesn't represent how people actually listen to music, or how they enjoy it. True, but you are not trying to measure enjoyment. You are trying to measure contrast--as you yourself said! I never said I was trying to "measure" contrast. You used the word "contrast," and measuring it is exactly what you are doing. Specifically, you are measuring the contrast between these two interconnects against the threshold below which humans cannot detect sonic contrasts. I was always trying to note my reactions as objectively as possible, including the reaction of enjoying the music. Typically I would note *how* or *what* was enjoyable. My hypothesis is that cables may differ is what aspects of the music they bring to conscious enjoyment. I'm trying to devise a test that is closer to natural listening. But it's a terribly difficult job. I would absolute agree with you that we can't reproduce a natural listening environment and simultaneously test people. That's the whole problem! But quick-switch tests are about the furthest thing from musical enjoyment I can imagine. Well, of course, but that's not what they're designed for. And I'm not sure that a protocol designed to enhance musical enjoyment would be the most effective means of determining sonic differences. That's where we differ. bob |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
Hi Norman, You are speaking right to the dilemma. We want to test as a way of learning what's true. What equipment brings maximum enjoyment? We want objective evidence of that. But testing is usually an unnatural environment. I'm trying to find a way to reconcile this. The "objectivists" on rahe as far as I can see don't attempt to reconcile it at all. That's because we see this as two separate questions, with detection of differences coming first. After all, if your ears can't deliver different signals to your brain, there's no way for you to have different levels of musical enjoyment, right? It's your hyothesis that our ears really are delivering different signals to our brain, but that if we try to focus consciously on those differences, we won't detect them. Whereas if we focus instead on our enjoyment of the music, we will become conscious of a difference. I said in another post that the evidence is stacked up against you. It is. The evidence suggests that ABX tests and similar DBTs are capable of identifying sonic differences very close to the physical limits of what the ear can detect. The evidence further suggests that the kinds of differences that interconnects, say, can be responsible for are ones for which we have a very short memory, so your protocol is likely to be less sensitive than a quick-switch test. But that's the existing evidence. You are welcome to throw new evidence on the table, and you have my respect for your willingness to do so. bob |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
... Hi Norman, You are speaking right to the dilemma. We want to test as a way of learning what's true. What equipment brings maximum enjoyment? We want objective evidence of that. But testing is usually an unnatural environment. I'm trying to find a way to reconcile this. The "objectivists" on rahe as far as I can see don't attempt to reconcile it at all. Since testing is an unnatural act, the results of any test are suspect as far as the body of subjectivist audiophiles is concerned. Ideally then, one has to come up with a test protocol wherein the subject does not know he's being tested. Then objection is that the subject is not 'on his mettle', and the results can't really be trusted. As you can easily see, there is a valid objection to both approaches, such that it's impossible to draw any conclusions. I'm giving the matter some thought, and I hope to eventually think of a way to obtain useful objective results that will be acceptable to both sides of the argument. So far, it seems that every proposal has some sort of drawback that makes it invalid to either the subjectivists or the objectivists--usually both! Cheers, Norm |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
It could be (this is probably what you believe) that all the details in a musical signal that the ear can actually hear are available in the act of short-term comparison of sound. If this were true, then I would agree that quick-switch testing would be the gold standard of comparison. But how do we know this is true? Can we determine this is true from quick-switch testing? If all the tests we do involve the same mode of listening, can we infer things about other modes of listening? One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds, the sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that the only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis. One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds and transmitting them to the brain. And another thing we know from experiments that have been done already is that people are better at identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably better explanations for this). A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of familiarity likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect might be responsible for? bob |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Michael Mossey wrote: It could be (this is probably what you believe) that all the details in a musical signal that the ear can actually hear are available in the act of short-term comparison of sound. If this were true, then I would agree that quick-switch testing would be the gold standard of comparison. But how do we know this is true? Can we determine this is true from quick-switch testing? If all the tests we do involve the same mode of listening, can we infer things about other modes of listening? One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds, the sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that the only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis. One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds and transmitting them to the brain. And another thing we know from experiments that have been done already is that people are better at identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably better explanations for this). A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of familiarity likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect might be responsible for? This is a reasonable argument. If the source is white or pink noise, it might be easier to detect a very slight difference. If you can tell the difference between interconnects using noise as a source, but not music, then I would say you can tell the difference---period. Norm Strong |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
wrote: Michael Mossey wrote: It could be (this is probably what you believe) that all the details in a musical signal that the ear can actually hear are available in the act of short-term comparison of sound. If this were true, then I would agree that quick-switch testing would be the gold standard of comparison. But how do we know this is true? Can we determine this is true from quick-switch testing? If all the tests we do involve the same mode of listening, can we infer things about other modes of listening? One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds, the sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that the only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis. It seems perfectly consistent to me that putting a gap in a quick-switching test decreases sensitivity, if the subject is still trying to hear differences in sound (as opposed to registering musical impressions). "Putting a gap in a quick-switching test" is an oxymoron. The point is that any gap, in any listening comparison, will reduce sensitivity. And there is no reason other than pure faith to believe that your listening comparison will be any different. One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds and transmitting them to the brain. Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum For the record, I am neither. have always maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently in hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how would you know if that were true? You mean, besides sheer common sense and the absolute lack of countervailing evidence? Wouldn't that require listening tests that could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of listening modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"? Your ear does not "enjoy music." It only reacts to rapid changes in air pressure. That's how we know that it doesn't operate differently. Have these tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode be controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult problem--has someone solved it?)? Have you ever actually cracked a textbook on psychoacoustics? You certainly seem to be interested enough in the subject. You would be amazed at what has actually been tested--and what has been eliminated as a realistic possibility as a result of those tests. And another thing we know from experiments that have been done already is that people are better at identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably better explanations for this). What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response differences are audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about something like jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with so much jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be heard first on signals with transients? We're talking about analog interconnects, aren't we? Can you offer any physical explanation for how they might possibly affect anything other than frequency response? A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of familiarity likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect might be responsible for? bob I agree, I was not able to perfectly control my mental reactions to music. As you mention, hearing something twice affects this. Instead of hearing it as "two" clips of music, I hear it as one piece of music that happens to repeat some details; and the second repetition has different musical feeling than the first. Just by observing my own experience, I've noted that listening to a piece of music all the way through, then clearing the pallete with other pieces of music, then taking a break, and only then listening again, seems to replicate my musical reaction better. Perhaps I will be successful in reducing the variation in reactions to music below the threshold of difference between cables. Note that audiophiles say cables are *vastly* different; I think that's probably an exaggeration, but if there is any truth to the idea that a cable really matters to the musical perception, it should show up in my listening. I'm fairly certain the opposite is true: That we can find cables that would be differentiable in a standard quick-switching DBT, but not by your method. But I'm not willing to test that assertion, because I seriously doubt your method could differentiate anything that wasn't physically broken. bob |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
... John P. Green wrote: "---MIKE---" wrote in message ... I'm not in LA so I can't participate in your test. I fail to see how a long term test can show anything. I notice differences in the sound of my system from day to day without making any changes. Variables such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, whether I blew my nose too hard, my level of fatigue, mood, etc. make greater differences than any change of cables would (unless one of the cables was defective). ---MIKE--- The atmospheric pressure, humidity, state of your sinuses, etc., should all be uncorrelated with which of the two cables being compared is in use. So those random variables should not invalidate a long enough series of tests with a significant deviation from chance. I'm not a "believer" in high end cable myself but I'm all in favor of tests like this being done. After all, I've been wrong about things before. I'm not sure myself about high-end cables. I tend to doubt they do anything. However, a few years ago I listened carefully and thought they were doing something. Was I imagining this? I did an informal blind test with the help of a friend, which involved several five minute listening sessions to cables. Every four sessions was either ABAB or ABBA, unknown to me. We did 16 sessions which gave me four chances to guess the order ABAB or ABBA. I guessed right all four times. Not only that, but I was quite confident that I knew what I was hearing. But four trials is not enough to be statiscally sound. Last year I had another friend help me in a similar test. I did eight trials. This time I got five right and three wrong, which isn't very promising. Furthermore, in the last trial I was absolutely confident I knew which cable I was hearing, and I was wrong. It showed me how strong expectation bias can be. But I still wonder if I was just tired. After all, each trial involved four listening sessions, so that was 32 sessions, or about five or six hours of real time to get through all that. So I want to do some more tests. If, after all this time, you are not really sure, is it really worth the effort? I would think that straining that hard to detect some minor difference between cables (even if it exists) would detract from simply enjoying the music. - Gary Rosen |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
... wrote: Michael Mossey wrote: It could be (this is probably what you believe) that all the details in a musical signal that the ear can actually hear are available in the act of short-term comparison of sound. If this were true, then I would agree that quick-switch testing would be the gold standard of comparison. But how do we know this is true? Can we determine this is true from quick-switch testing? If all the tests we do involve the same mode of listening, can we infer things about other modes of listening? One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds, the sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that the only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis. It seems perfectly consistent to me that putting a gap in a quick-switching test decreases sensitivity, if the subject is still trying to hear differences in sound (as opposed to registering musical impressions). Absolutely right, and IMO there is a difference and it gets to the crux of the matter. One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds and transmitting them to the brain. Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum have always maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently in hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how would you know if that were true? Wouldn't that require listening tests that could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of listening modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"? Have these tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode be controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult problem--has someone solved it?)? I've thoroughly enjoyed your articulate and persuasive presentation for the case for thoughtful evaluation of quick-switch testing. You have presented it more powerfully than I was able to in a long, long thread here about a year ago. And in particular, I argued the case for a control test which -- no -- had not been done to get at the possibility you reference. It is why I and ohters have avoided concluding that because a quick switch blind test shows no difference, there is no musical difference. And why we continue to do other forms of critical listening in making our own listening discisions. BTW, I proposed a specific test protocol to get at the control issue, and tried to solicit interest within the group in joining together to put this issue to rest. It was met with little enthusiasm by the objectivists here. And another thing we know from experiments that have been done already is that people are better at identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably better explanations for this). What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response differences are audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about something like jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with so much jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be heard first on signals with transients? I cut a test high-speed disk copy of some Brubeck today, while configuring a computer. Just for fun...never tried to record at 52X before. Then for even more fun, thew it on the main system. My ears bled. Then realized I had copied MP3 files (albeit 196k) and in combination with the high speed cutting it was disasterous on the piano transients and sharp breathing on the sax (don't know which was the culprit but I intend to reburn same media at 4x to find out). A final thought on this: How can your mental reaction to music NOT differ the second time you hear it? And isn't the fact of familiarity likely to trump the kinds of sonic differences an interconnect might be responsible for? bob I agree, I was not able to perfectly control my mental reactions to music. As you mention, hearing something twice affects this. Instead of hearing it as "two" clips of music, I hear it as one piece of music that happens to repeat some details; and the second repetition has different musical feeling than the first. Just by observing my own experience, I've noted that listening to a piece of music all the way through, then clearing the pallete with other pieces of music, then taking a break, and only then listening again, seems to replicate my musical reaction better. Perhaps I will be successful in reducing the variation in reactions to music below the threshold of difference between cables. Note that audiophiles say cables are *vastly* different; I think that's probably an exaggeration, but if there is any truth to the idea that a cable really matters to the musical perception, it should show up in my listening. Right on. If you think the above repetition is polluting, just consider what constant switching does to our ability to hear nuances in musical reproduction (which is not sound, but is a subjective interpretation by the brain). |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry F Lavo" wrote in message
... Right on. If you think the above repetition is polluting, just consider what constant switching does to our ability to hear nuances in musical reproduction (which is not sound, but is a subjective interpretation by the brain). If "nuances in musical reproduction" are heard by "... a subjective interpretation by the brain", then how do you know whether any differences perceived are due to differences in the source material, rather than changes in the subject's mood, health, internal distractions etc.? - Gary Rosen |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry F Lavo wrote:
"Michael Mossey" wrote in message ... wrote: Michael Mossey wrote: It could be (this is probably what you believe) that all the details in a musical signal that the ear can actually hear are available in the act of short-term comparison of sound. If this were true, then I would agree that quick-switch testing would be the gold standard of comparison. But how do we know this is true? Can we determine this is true from quick-switch testing? If all the tests we do involve the same mode of listening, can we infer things about other modes of listening? One thing we do know is that when we modify a quick-switching test to interpose a gap between listening samples, even just a few seconds, the sensitivity of the test goes way down. I suppose it's possible that the only thing that declines here is our ability to consciously identify sonic differences, but our mental reaction to the difference would remain robust, as long as we gave ourselves time to have a mental reaction. That seems to be your hypothesis. It seems perfectly consistent to me that putting a gap in a quick-switching test decreases sensitivity, if the subject is still trying to hear differences in sound (as opposed to registering musical impressions). Absolutely right, and IMO there is a difference and it gets to the crux of the matter. One other thing to think about is the issue of music as a source material here. It is certainly the case that our mental reaction to music differs from our mental reaction to other sounds. But it is highly unlikely to be the case that our ears work differently when hearing music. Your hypothesis has to be about mental reactions to music (whatever that is!), not the physical act of picking up sounds and transmitting them to the brain. Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum have always maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently in hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how would you know if that were true? Wouldn't that require listening tests that could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of listening modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"? Have these tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode be controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult problem--has someone solved it?)? I've thoroughly enjoyed your articulate and persuasive presentation for the case for thoughtful evaluation of quick-switch testing. You have presented it more powerfully than I was able to in a long, long thread here about a year ago. And in particular, I argued the case for a control test which -- no -- had not been done to get at the possibility you reference. It is why I and ohters have avoided concluding that because a quick switch blind test shows no difference, there is no musical difference. And why we continue to do other forms of critical listening in making our own listening discisions. BTW, I proposed a specific test protocol to get at the control issue, and tried to solicit interest within the group in joining together to put this issue to rest. It was met with little enthusiasm by the objectivists here. Thanks for your comments. Even though I haven't posted here much before, I've been thinking about these issues ever since I was a freshman at Caltech in 1987. Not much has changed in the arguments put forth by the objectivists; I remember the old "tubes are better" / "no, you just like the sound of the distortion" going on in exactly the same form back then, among students at Caltech. I've learned a lot about mindfulness, musicianship, the philosophy of science, and so on that bears on this question in the years since then. I think we need evidence and as this is not my career I don't really have the opportunity to investigate this; my main point here is that the "objectivist" position has problems, I think best summed up by saying that it is a reductionist view. This is not to say I know it's wrong; just to say that I can believe it would mislead. Best, Mike |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gary Rosen" wrote in message
... "Harry F Lavo" wrote in message ... Right on. If you think the above repetition is polluting, just consider what constant switching does to our ability to hear nuances in musical reproduction (which is not sound, but is a subjective interpretation by the brain). If "nuances in musical reproduction" are heard by "... a subjective interpretation by the brain", then how do you know whether any differences perceived are due to differences in the source material, rather than changes in the subject's mood, health, internal distractions etc.? - Gary Rosen That's why truly evaluative listening must be done over time, under varying (and hopefuully relaxed) conditions. And why several independent observations are better than just one persons, as that helps separate out reality. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
wrote: Michael Mossey wrote: Well, you and the other scientists/engineers in this forum For the record, I am neither. have always maintained that the evidence says our ears don't work differently in hearing music. I realize that may be true. But I ask again: how would you know if that were true? You mean, besides sheer common sense and the absolute lack of countervailing evidence? You are dodging the question. First of all, I'm sure you will be the first to agree that "common sense" can be wrong. As you are about to demonstrate... Secondly, my own common sense tells me that quick-switching obscures differences. That is because your common sense is ill-informed. The common sense of someone who was at least passingly familiar with the psychoacoustics literature would be very different. And thirdly, you are dodging my question which is to ask about the current evidence: was it gathered in a way that accounts for a different "mode of hearing," or a way that could rule this out? And given that this is such a difficult problem (akin to understanding consciousness) how was it solved? It is your unproven assumption that there is even such a thing as "different modes of hearing." Nothing we know about hearing perception suggests that we *hear* music differently than we hear anything else. (And yes, there have been plenty of psychoacoustics experiments dealing with music. There are whole textbooks on the subject.) Wouldn't that require listening tests that could control how a subject listens and employ a variety of listening modes, ranging from "enjoying music" to "hearing sound"? Your ear does not "enjoy music." It only reacts to rapid changes in air pressure. That's how we know that it doesn't operate differently. You are taking a highly reductionist approach. Reductionism is only wrong if it leaves something out. What have I left out about the operation of the ear? There is much more I could learn about psychoacoustics and neurology, I admit that. And if I find some time between my other four hobbies I will check out a book on psychoacoustics from the library. (I have an account at the Caltech library.) But I'm suspicious of a reductionist approach, especially its ability to rule out possibilities. Have these tests been done? And how would the test subject's listening mode be controlled (what seems to me an extraordinarily difficult problem--has someone solved it?)? Have you ever actually cracked a textbook on psychoacoustics? You certainly seem to be interested enough in the subject. You would be amazed at what has actually been tested--and what has been eliminated as a realistic possibility as a result of those tests. And another thing we know from experiments that have been done already is that people are better at identifying differences in sounds like tones and pink noise than music--which at least suggests that our mental reaction to music actually obscures differences (though there are other and probably better explanations for this). What kinds of differences? I'm sure frequency response differences are audible in pink noise and steady-state tones; how about something like jitter? Suppose we had a malfunctioning digital recorder with so much jitter that there's no argument it can be heard; wouldn't it be heard first on signals with transients? We're talking about analog interconnects, aren't we? Can you offer any physical explanation for how they might possibly affect anything other than frequency response? Well I'm addressing your argument that the results of pink noise suggest it is better than music as a test stimulus. I'm asking "for what effects?" I'm interested in all of audio, not just interconnects. In fact the effects of amplifiers and recorders are probably more interesting to me than interconnects. The argument that interconnects could only affect frequency response is reductionist. That's its weakness. Only if it leaves something out. So I'll ask again, what am I leaving out? You went to CalTech. I'd be embarrassed to admit in this company how I fulfilled my science distribution requirement. So you tell me: What can interconnects do to a signal besides affect freuency response? bob |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Apr 2005 00:44:16 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote: wrote: We're talking about analog interconnects, aren't we? Can you offer any physical explanation for how they might possibly affect anything other than frequency response? Well I'm addressing your argument that the results of pink noise suggest it is better than music as a test stimulus. I'm asking "for what effects?" Audible differences of any kind. Incidentally, your 'common sense' is also at fault regarding quick-switched comparisons. We know this because, when small differences are deliberately introduced between signals, the most sensitive technique for discovering those differences is quick switching DBT. This is not some handwaving theorising, this is practical results from real listening tests. That's why big professional organisations such as Harman International use quick-switch DBTs in their everyday R&D. I'm interested in all of audio, not just interconnects. In fact the effects of amplifiers and recorders are probably more interesting to me than interconnects. The argument that interconnects could only affect frequency response is reductionist. That's its weakness. You're dodging the question. He did not argue that interconnects can only affect FR, he asked if *you* could suggest any mechanism for any other effect. Can you? BTW, if you could use a few thousand bucks, there's an outstanding prize for *anyone* who can demonstrate an ability to hear differences among cables. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Apr 2005 00:52:03 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote: Even though I haven't posted here much before, I've been thinking about these issues ever since I was a freshman at Caltech in 1987. Not much has changed in the arguments put forth by the objectivists; I remember the old "tubes are better" / "no, you just like the sound of the distortion" going on in exactly the same form back then, among students at Caltech. Why would anything have changed? 2+2 is likely to remain 4 indefinitely, and tubes are unlikely to stop generating euphonic artifacts. It's the 'subjectivists' who seem to come up with ever more fanciful theories, but can never provide any real experimental evidence to back them up. I've learned a lot about mindfulness, musicianship, the philosophy of science, and so on that bears on this question in the years since then. I think we need evidence and as this is not my career I don't really have the opportunity to investigate this; my main point here is that the "objectivist" position has problems, I think best summed up by saying that it is a reductionist view. This is not to say I know it's wrong; just to say that I can believe it would mislead. That is mere sophistry. The objectivist position is absolutely *not* reductionist, it accepts all possibilities. It does however ask that anyone making an extraordinary claim should acknowledge that *they* have a responsibility to provide evidence to back that claim. It is insufficient to claim 'we don't know everything' as a justification for some wild fancy. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
I wonder how you know that quick switching comparisons provide conscious access to all musical aspects of a signal? You would say you know it from evidence gathered through experimentation. I say, that's fine, but were the experimentors aware how different modes of attention affect consciousness? So far, no one has pointed me to an experiment that shows any attention to this. So I wonder, how certain is this knowledge that quick-switching provides complete conscious access to the signal? "Complete conscious access to the signal" depends, first, on the ability of our ears and nervous system to deliver that signal to our brain. There are real, physical, limits to what our ears can detect, and we know that standard DBTs can get pretty close to those limits. snip "Different modes of hearing" refers to a very obvious subjective phenomena. What you consciously experience depends on what you are paying attention to. Very simple, and I don't see how you can disagree with that. So I'm asking, how does the research prove "what you are paying attention to" doesn't matter? We don't really know what listening test subjects are paying attention to. Seriously. All we know is that they can or cannot consistently identify the difference between two things. (In fact, in a properly designed ABX test, you could do exactly the test you described earlier.) So far, no one has been able to show that they can hear differences better by not using quick-switching comparisons. You could be the first. But if you'll familiarize yourself a bit with the psychoacoustics lioterature, you'll understand why some of us are betting against you. snip Reductionism in this sense is reducing something to components and making irrelevant their interaction. You separated "enjoyment" (which takes place across a large section of the brain) from "hearing" (which I assume you mean refers to the physical ear and perhaps the auditory cortex). In essense, you are saying the ear "doesn't operate differently" because you have reduced it to a model in which there is no connection between ear and consciousness. I've done no such thing. All I've done is argued for priority. You have to "hear" before you "enjoy." If you think otherwise, you have a very strange notion of anatomy. bob |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm going to the Caltech library this afternoon to get a book on
pyschoacoustics. I imagine it won't tell me much about how this information was derived from experiment but it will probably just present the information. Nonetheless, it will be a start. I agree that if you can't hear it, then you can't be consciously aware of it. My point is something like this: if you can't be consciously aware of it, then you can't know if you can hear it. My experience of consciousness, and I think the scientific evidence backs me up in this, is that consciousness doesn't represent a projection that contains all the information in the sensory input, but picks and chooses among the available sensory information, and *constructs* an experience based on an internal model. There's a famous experiment in which subjects fail to see a gorilla-suited man walk through a basketball game, when the subjects are asked to focus on the ball. You cannot conclude from this experiment that the eye can't see a gorilla. You CAN conclude that the mode of attention blocked it from consciousness. So, I'm not trying to argue with you: this is an honest question: how does the research to determine what we "hear" separate that stage from consciousness? How do you determine what you can hear in a way that doesn't need to account for how consciousness is formed from that signal? Brain implants in the auditory cortex? -Mike |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Apr 2005 00:52:03 GMT, "Michael Mossey" wrote: Even though I haven't posted here much before, I've been thinking about these issues ever since I was a freshman at Caltech in 1987. Not much has changed in the arguments put forth by the objectivists; I remember the old "tubes are better" / "no, you just like the sound of the distortion" going on in exactly the same form back then, among students at Caltech. Why would anything have changed? 2+2 is likely to remain 4 indefinitely, and tubes are unlikely to stop generating euphonic artifacts. It's the 'subjectivists' who seem to come up with ever more fanciful theories, but can never provide any real experimental evidence to back them up. I've learned a lot about mindfulness, musicianship, the philosophy of science, and so on that bears on this question in the years since then. I think we need evidence and as this is not my career I don't really have the opportunity to investigate this; my main point here is that the "objectivist" position has problems, I think best summed up by saying that it is a reductionist view. This is not to say I know it's wrong; just to say that I can believe it would mislead. That is mere sophistry. The objectivist position is absolutely *not* reductionist, it accepts all possibilities. I thought that science can never test *all* possibilities. I don't mean to say this is valid reasoning to tear down any point of view we disagree with. I think this is nonetheless quite a significant difference between us, if you think that science can test *all* possibilities. It does however ask that anyone making an extraordinary claim should acknowledge that *they* have a responsibility to provide evidence to back that claim. It is insufficient to claim 'we don't know everything' as a justification for some wild fancy. I agree. However, notice that I don't think my hypotheses are "wild fancy." I don't think it is wild fancy to suggest that choice of attention can affect what we're conscious of. If I cannot find any evidence for this position, I will eventually abandon it. -Mike |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Mossey wrote:
So, I'm not trying to argue with you: this is an honest question: how does the research to determine what we "hear" separate that stage from consciousness? How do you determine what you can hear in a way that doesn't need to account for how consciousness is formed from that signal? Brain implants in the auditory cortex? Not sure I'm getting you here. Everything we're talking about is conscious. You can't do what audiophiles claim to do--notice a sonic difference between A and B--any way but consciously. You listen to Cable A for 5 minutes, then Cable X for 5 minutes, then you decide whether your emotional response to the two selections is sufficiently similar to determine that X is or is not A. You aren't separating "hearing" from "consciousness." So why is this an issue? bob |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| James Randi gets clarified on audio biz | High End Audio | |||
| A comparative versus evaluative, double-blind vs. sighted control test | High End Audio | |||
| Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
| Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> | Car Audio | |||
| Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes | |||
. Let's agree on the more precise
Linear Mode
