Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
In an older thread about the Meyer/Moran study relating to the
audibility of "bottlenecking" the output of SACD through the A/D/A section of a CD-recorder, the need of calibration was mentioned: "Your results weren't calibrated, because you didn't come up with any measurement of the differences that your experimental setup could actually detect with your chosen source material and test subjects. This could have been done by generating test material with known degradations and determining which of these were audible. In other words, by generating positive differences that could be detected, not negative differences which could not be detected." The same author in a current thread said: "The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the source material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution and suitability to detect the effects being evaluated". My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? Klaus |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 18, 10:07=A0am, wrote:
My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? Pseudo-scientific rationalization often relies on the casual use of scientific terms to make an argument sound more authoritative than it is. This is no exception. Clearly, a lack of "calibration" did not unduly concern the actual scientists who served as peer reviewers for the M&M article. Objective listening tests have been used thousands of times to demonstrate audible differences. The results quite reliably correlate with other methods of determining hearing thresholds. M&M's results were no exception. (And, it should be noted, not all of their results were negative: At higher volume levels, the lower noise floor of hi- res digital was audible in their tests.) Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct a study that produces a different result. bob |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:51:44 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jun 18, 10:07=A0am, wrote: My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? Pseudo-scientific rationalization often relies on the casual use of scientific terms to make an argument sound more authoritative than it is. This is no exception. Clearly, a lack of "calibration" did not unduly concern the actual scientists who served as peer reviewers for the M&M article. Objective listening tests have been used thousands of times to demonstrate audible differences. The results quite reliably correlate with other methods of determining hearing thresholds. M&M's results were no exception. (And, it should be noted, not all of their results were negative: At higher volume levels, the lower noise floor of hi- res digital was audible in their tests.) Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct a study that produces a different result. bob AFAICS, the only "calibration" needed is for levels between components-under-test to be as closely matched as possible. Loudness differences will always mask any real differences heard between components (and in fact will generate differences where none really exist). Also, it seems to be a characteristic of human audio perception that the louder of two components under test will always be deemed to sound "better" than the less loud component. If this is what is meant here by "calibration", then yes, it is VERY necessary. I would think that anything else would be difficult to achieve and superfluous - especially if all one was trying to accomplish is ascertain if two components of the same type (DAC, CD Player, record deck, Pre-amp, amplifier, tuner, etc) sound 'different". |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a
demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? If one wanted to establish what threshold of any difference in gear can be heard then it would be required. If testing to see if for any particular bit of gear difference can be heard it doesn't. Whatever the threshold if no difference is detected then it is below the perception threshhold and that is the point of the test. When time after time controled listening alone tests fail to support subjective claims, one of the obvious responses is to question some aspect of the test instead of the even more obvious inherent problems of subjective listening experiences. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
wrote in message
In an older thread about the Meyer/Moran study relating to the audibility of "bottlenecking" the output of SACD through the A/D/A section of a CD-recorder, the need of calibration was mentioned: "Your results weren't calibrated, because you didn't come up with any measurement of the differences that your experimental setup could actually detect with your chosen source material and test subjects. This is a false claim. It can be determined from extant psychoacoustic data exactly what kind of roll-offs are required to cause an audible difference. Exactly what kind of brick-wall roll-off that is required to cause an audible difference has been known for decades, based on listening tests. For example, my www.pcabx.com web site in 2002 had dozens of test files composed of various wideband musical selections, to which brick wall filters of various frequencies had been applied. The cut-off frequencies ranged down from about 45 KHz to about 11 KHz in logical steps. This could have been done by generating test material with known degradations and determining which of these were audible. A good idea, and this has been done over and over again. In other words, by generating positive differences that could be detected, not negative differences which could not be detected." There's only one thing with extant data of this kind - it supports the idea that the CD format is capable of sonically transparent reproduction of music. The same author in a current thread said: "The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the source material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution and suitability to detect the effects being evaluated". There's no obvious need to re-invent the wheel. My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? I guess the whole issue arises when audiophiles are unaware of, or unwilling to accept the results of well-known scientific investigations that have been done over a period of years and decades. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 20, 9:57=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate their opinions. That's true, but on the other hand if one goes a step further and claims that one's opinions are more than just opinions but facts, then they should not be surprised or upset when asked to provide their evidence. And if what they call evidence doesn't meet the evidentiary standards common to reasonable discourse, then they should not get upset when other people aren't persuaded to change their minds. Alas, in this forum we find, time after time, that some people state their unsubstantiated personal opinions as fact, and not opinions. And get upset when asked for evidence to substantiate their extraordinary claims. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
nabob wrote (in message ): Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct a study that produces a different result. I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate their opinions. That's right. Nobody has any obligation to do even one little thing to support their claims. Then, every reasonable person recognizes the claims for what they are, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, and simply moves on. Certainly there's no mention of this in the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific forum - it's a Usenet discussion group. It's a rather divided forum. On one side we have people who defend unsubstantiated claims, and on the other side we have people who are themselves capable of making claims and supporting them with reliable, well-thought out evidence. Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject opinions as he sees fit. Exactly. Those who wish to suspend disbelief can continue to do so, and say what they will while they are doing it. But let's not stifle discussion by accepting nabob's absurd demand. Nabob's demands only apply to people who consider themselves rational. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote: Alas, in this forum we find, time after time, that some people state their unsubstantiated personal opinions as fact, and not opinions. And get upset when asked for evidence to substantiate their extraordinary claims. We also find that some people make it clear that their opinion about the sound of ____________ (software, hardware, etc.) is just that: their opinion. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:55:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message =20 nabob wrote (in message ): =20 Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct a study that produces a different result. =20 I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate their opinions. =20 That's right. Nobody has any obligation to do even one little thing to=20 support their claims. Then, every reasonable person recognizes the clai= ms=20 for what they are, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, and simply move= s on. =20 Certainly there's no mention of this in the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific forum - it's a Usenet discussion group. =20 It's a rather divided forum. On one side we have people who defend=20 unsubstantiated claims, and on the other side we have people who are=20 themselves capable of making claims and supporting them with reliable,=20 well-thought out evidence. =20 Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject opinions as he sees fit. =20 Exactly. Those who wish to suspend disbelief can continue to do so, and= say=20 what they will while they are doing it. =20 But let's not stifle discussion by accepting nabob's absurd demand. =20 Nabob's demands only apply to people who consider themselves rational.=20 =20 =20 Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational" irrespective of=20 whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger 100% of the time. Audio, as a=20 hobby, is more akin to politics than it is to science or engineering in t= hat=20 people have strong opinions about almost everything, and not all audio=20 subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what=20 logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should.=20 Take vinyl, for instance. Good vinyl has always been one of those areas w= here=20 the whole is certainly greater than the mere sum of it's parts. "Hi-Fi=20 Choice" writer Jimmy Hughes* put it eloquently and succinctly recently in= an=20 opinion piece he wrote about Linn Sondek's LP-12 record deck: "On a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less= =20 background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower=20 peak-level distortion. Yet, against all the odds, vinyl offers a musical=20 integrity that transcends it's limitations creating results that are spec= ial=20 and unique. Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content = of=20 the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the same= =20 musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs =AD the sense= of=20 real people playing real instruments in a tangible space."=20 I don't know about the rest of you, but that's what I listen to recorded=20 music to experience.=20 I might also add that I make my own digital recordings that have all of t= he=20 above - in spades. But you can't buy digital recordings on the open marke= t=20 that sound as good. I don't pretend to understand why this should be so, = it's=20 certainly not that difficult to make spectacular sounding digital even at= =20 16-bit/44.1 KHz Redbook standards. I have thousands of commercial digital= =20 recordings on CD, DVD-A, SACD, and even DAT. None sound as good as my own= =20 "home-made" digital creations or even as good as the best available from= =20 vinyl.=20 * "Hi Fi Choice" is a magazine that I admire more and more. They not only= =20 listen subjectively, but they also do measurement tests of equipment and = they=20 do DBTs as well. Like most hobbyist publications, the Brits just seem to = do=20 it better. Better writing, better content, more in-depth evaluations... |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 20, 12:57=A0pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:
nabob wrote (in message ): Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct a study that produces a different result. I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate their opinions. To clarify, I would draw a distinction between opinions and technical claims: * "I think hi-res formats make an audible difference, and I don't care what the JAES says" is an opinion. * "The JAES study is flawed because its methodology was not calibrated" is a technical claim (albeit a pretty meaningless one). I wouldn't expect scientific back-up for the first statement, though I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether there is any scientific back-up for it. (Also, I think it's perfectly reasonable to note that if you make the first part of the statement, without said back-up, you are also making the second part.) However, I think anyone making the second statement *does* have an obligation to present scientific support for it. bob |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:55:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message nabob wrote (in message ): Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct a study that produces a different result. I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate their opinions. That's right. Nobody has any obligation to do even one little thing to support their claims. Then, every reasonable person recognizes the claims for what they are, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, and simply moves on. Certainly there's no mention of this in the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific forum - it's a Usenet discussion group. It's a rather divided forum. On one side we have people who defend unsubstantiated claims, and on the other side we have people who are themselves capable of making claims and supporting them with reliable, well-thought out evidence. Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject opinions as he sees fit. Exactly. Those who wish to suspend disbelief can continue to do so, and say what they will while they are doing it. But let's not stifle discussion by accepting nabob's absurd demand. Nabob's demands only apply to people who consider themselves rational. Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational" irrespective of whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger 100% of the time. Seems like an attempt to unecessarily make this discussion personal. Audio, as a hobby, is more akin to politics than it is to science or engineering in that people have strong opinions about almost everything, and not all audio subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should. Interesting idea, that audio is more like politics than science. I guess that would be a revelation of your true state of mind. Most audio professionals see Audio as being both and art and a science. Being involved in several different arts, it has been my experience that once you exclude the dilentantes who by defintion cannot fully appreciate the art and science aspects of audio, audio is no more political than many other arts. Take vinyl, for instance. Vinyl seems to be irrelevant to the discussion since only a tiny minority of people who are interested in audio are interested in vinyl. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 21, 5:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational" irrespective of whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger 100% of the time. Audio, as a hobby, is more akin to politics than it is to science or engineering in t= hat people have strong opinions about almost everything, and not all audio subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should. But some audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic technologies, so to speak. Some people apparently refuse to recognize this. I suspect that's what Arny was getting at about "rational." Take vinyl, for instance. Good vinyl has always been one of those areas w= here the whole is certainly greater than the mere sum of it's parts. "Hi-Fi Choice" writer Jimmy Hughes* put it eloquently and succinctly recently in= an opinion piece he wrote about Linn Sondek's LP-12 record deck: "On a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower peak-level distortion. Yet, against all the odds, vinyl offers a musical integrity that transcends it's limitations creating results that are spec= ial and unique. Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content = of the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the same musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs =AD the sense= of real people playing real instruments in a tangible space." This is a good example of a statement about audio that is not rational, in that it refuses to acknowledge what engineering and science *can* tell us about audio. snip * "Hi Fi Choice" is a magazine that I admire more and more. They not only listen subjectively, but they also do measurement tests of equipment and = they do DBTs as well. Like most hobbyist publications, the Brits just seem to = do it better. Better writing, better content, more in-depth evaluations... It always seemed to me that they were just better at putting an empirical gloss on the usual subjective fluff. I wasn't aware that they'd done much in the DBT department. Perhaps you are confusing blind comparisons with something worthy of the term "test"? bob |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:33:37 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jun 21, 5:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational" irrespective of whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger 100% of the time. Audio, as a hobby, is more akin to politics than it is to science or engineering in t= hat people have strong opinions about almost everything, and not all audio subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should. But some audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic technologies, so to speak. Some people apparently refuse to recognize this. I suspect that's what Arny was getting at about "rational." I agree that many audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic technologies and that the analysis of same is incontrovertible. My point is that logic doesn't always reflect human experience. This is especially true with something as personal and emotional as listening to music. Take vinyl, for instance. Good vinyl has always been one of those areas w= here the whole is certainly greater than the mere sum of it's parts. "Hi-Fi Choice" writer Jimmy Hughes* put it eloquently and succinctly recently in= an opinion piece he wrote about Linn Sondek's LP-12 record deck: "On a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower peak-level distortion. Yet, against all the odds, vinyl offers a musical integrity that transcends it's limitations creating results that are spec= ial and unique. Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content = of the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the same musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs =AD the sense= of real people playing real instruments in a tangible space." This is a good example of a statement about audio that is not rational, in that it refuses to acknowledge what engineering and science *can* tell us about audio. But this example DOES acknowledge it. Mr. Hughes clearly states that ""On a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower peak-level distortion." Looks mighty like an acknowledgement of what engineering and science *can* tell us about audio to me. snip * "Hi Fi Choice" is a magazine that I admire more and more. They not only listen subjectively, but they also do measurement tests of equipment and = they do DBTs as well. Like most hobbyist publications, the Brits just seem to = do it better. Better writing, better content, more in-depth evaluations... It always seemed to me that they were just better at putting an empirical gloss on the usual subjective fluff. I wasn't aware that they'd done much in the DBT department. But they do. Perhaps you are confusing blind comparisons with something worthy of the term "test"? I am confusing nothing. They say that they do blind comparisons especially when comparing a bunch of like devices like DACs. OTOH, they and 'Hi-Fi News' are certainly more entertaining than the US rags, and that's mostly what magazines are for anyway; entertainment. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:26:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:55:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message nabob wrote (in message ): Anyone who disagrees with M&M's findings has an obligation to conduct a study that produces a different result. I'm not familiar with M&M's study, but this statement is just silly. There's no reason why anyone here has any obligation to provide scientific studies to substantiate their opinions. That's right. Nobody has any obligation to do even one little thing to support their claims. Then, every reasonable person recognizes the claims for what they are, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims, and simply moves on. Certainly there's no mention of this in the group's charter. This isn't a strict scientific forum - it's a Usenet discussion group. It's a rather divided forum. On one side we have people who defend unsubstantiated claims, and on the other side we have people who are themselves capable of making claims and supporting them with reliable, well-thought out evidence. Naturally, each reader is free to accept or reject opinions as he sees fit. Exactly. Those who wish to suspend disbelief can continue to do so, and say what they will while they are doing it. But let's not stifle discussion by accepting nabob's absurd demand. Nabob's demands only apply to people who consider themselves rational. Most people on this forum consider themselves "rational" irrespective of whether or not they agree with Mr. Kruger 100% of the time. Seems like an attempt to unecessarily make this discussion personal. Not personal at all. Just noting, Mr. Kruger, that you seem to consider yourself among the "rational" while implying that those who disagree with some of your "informed opinions" are NOT rational. The audio hobby doesn't have to conform to a completely rational approach (although it's certainly nice when it does) because it's about a totally emotional pleasure - listening to music (possibly mixed with a degree exorbitant consumerism). If that makes the music sound better (whatever the individual listener might consider "better"), then who are you or I to tell them otherwise. I know, for instance, that, at audio frequencies, wire is just wire. I also know that countless DBT tests have shown that properly constructed audio cables all sound exactly the same, and it's certainly OK to state that as fact. But at the end of the day, if an audiophile believes that a $4000 pair of 1 meter interconnects, for instance, makes his CD player sound "better" to him, then it DOES sound better to HIM. Logic has little, if anything to do with it. I know that those cables don't do ANYTHING over a cheap set of Radio Shack cables, you know that they don't do ANYTHING, but the owner of the cables thinks that they do, and that belief enhances his enjoyment of the music. Does that make him irrational? Not from where I sit. [ Let's steer this away from the personal immediately, please. -- dsr ] Audio, as a hobby, is more akin to politics than it is to science or engineering in that people have strong opinions about almost everything, and not all audio subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should. Interesting idea, that audio is more like politics than science. I guess that would be a revelation of your true state of mind. Most audio professionals see Audio as being both and art and a science. Being involved in several different arts, it has been my experience that once you exclude the dilentantes who by defintion cannot fully appreciate the art and science aspects of audio, audio is no more political than many other arts. Take vinyl, for instance. Vinyl seems to be irrelevant to the discussion since only a tiny minority of people who are interested in audio are interested in vinyl. It's very relevant. It's a case where you (and some others who post here regularly) have looked at the numbers and decreed the medium useless, antiquated, obsolete, whatever. As such, it is a perfect example of what I meant when I said that "not all audio subjects can be distilled into their basic technologies or yield to what logically "ought to be" just because some "expert" says it should." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Not personal at all. Just noting, Mr. Kruger, that you seem to consider yourself among the "rational" while implying that those who disagree with some of your "informed opinions" are NOT rational. Again you're being way too personal. Most of my opinions are not at all personal to just me, and many thoughts of mine that some people call opinions aren't even just opinons. This should be pretty obvious from what I write because so many of my posts reference papers in relevant, refereed scientific journals. Furthermore, while many of the ideas I share here seem strange to some, they are typical of some of the best minds in the audio industry - sucessful and well-known authors, educators, system designers, etc. There's a problem with audio, and that is the fact that the people who write for the popular press are frequently poorly-informed about the actual technology that they write about. For example I think about a certain highly-influential writer with a strong bias towards vinyl. He has no known credentials other than his claims that he has an audio system is valued in the six or seven figures. He has no known professional occupation other than writing, and cannot possibly be fund his professed life style with the writer's fees that would normally be paid for his published works. They are a pittance compared to his investments in high end audio gear. The audio hobby doesn't have to conform to a completely rational approach (although it's certainly nice when it does) because it's about a totally emotional pleasure - listening to music (possibly mixed with a degree exorbitant consumerism). If that makes the music sound better (whatever the individual listener might consider "better"), then who are you or I to tell them otherwise. I'll go further than that - the entire audio field (not just its hobby aspects) does not have to be completely rational since it is generally agreed that audio is both art and science. One reason why audio is partially an art is that we currently lack the science to completely support much of what we do. I know, for instance, that, at audio frequencies, wire is just wire. If you gave science its proper due, you'd be willing to admit that at all frequencies, wire is just wire. I also know that countless DBT tests have shown that properly constructed audio cables all sound exactly the same, and it's certainly OK to state that as fact. At this point I would like to point out that the idea of "properly constructed audio cables" "sound the same" is a truism. Adding no audible colorations of their own is generally given as being one of the goals of speaker cables. The idea of "properly constructed audio cables" "sound the same" is a truism is also not 100% true. I own at least one piece of professional audio gear that was sold with speaker cables that were designed to audibly affect the sound quality of the piece of equipment. They are properly constructed in the sense that the entire ensemble is intended to be working most accurately with the colorations due to the cables included in the set. But, the cables themselves add audible coloration. BTW, the equipment is an NHTPro A10 studio monitor system. But at the end of the day, if an audiophile believes that a $4000 pair of 1 meter interconnects, for instance, makes his CD player sound "better" to him, then it DOES sound better to HIM. That's called solipsism, and solipsism does not disprove science. Furthermore there is a chance that he by chance has stumbled into a similar case to the NHTPro A10 - a situation where the colorations of the cables offset colorations elsewhere in the system. OTOH, perhaps it's the self-gratifcation of doting on himself by spending that kind of money is important to him. It's the audio equivalent of smoking very expensive cigars or taking on the services of a very expensive personal entertainer or trainer. If this is what people want to do with their money then there are no laws against it, and even the highest ethical standards generally given in our culture do not criticize such things provided that a person is also charitable. Logic has little, if anything to do with it. I submit that logic still applies. It's just a non-technical kind of logic. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 18, 7:07=A0am, wrote:
In an older thread about the Meyer/Moran study relating to the audibility of "bottlenecking" the output of SACD through the A/D/A section of a CD-recorder, the need of calibration was mentioned: "Your results weren't calibrated, because you didn't come up with any measurement of the differences that your experimental setup could actually detect with your chosen source material and test subjects. This could have been done by generating test material with known degradations and determining which of these were audible. In other words, by generating positive differences that could be detected, not negative differences which could not be detected." The same author in a current thread said: "The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the source material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution and suitability to detect the effects being evaluated". My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? Klaus Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to audible differences? No way to know is there? |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 21, 11:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
I agree that many audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic technologies and that the analysis of same is incontrovertible. My point = is that logic doesn't always reflect human experience. IOW, humans aren't always logical. Sounds like you're thinking the same way Arny was when he used the term "rational." This is especially true with something as personal and emotional as listening to music. =A0 I would submit that this has nothing to do with music, and everything to do with some deep human need 1) to acquire things, and 2) to feel some sense of efficacy and discernment. snip But this example DOES acknowledge it. Mr. Hughes clearly states that ""On= a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower peak-level distortion." Looks mighty like an acknowledgement of what engineering and science *can* tell us about audio to me. OK, now look at the second half of the quote, where he clearly rejects things science and engineering can tell us about audio: ...Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content of the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the sam= e musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs-- the sense = of real people playing real instruments in a tangible space." Leaving aside the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about "recreating emotional content," it is trivially easy to achieve exactly the same experience from a CD that one gets from vinyl--just make a CDR of the vinyl. It takes very little science to demonstrate that. snip Perhaps you are confusing blind comparisons with something worthy of the term "test"? I am confusing nothing. They say that they do blind comparisons especiall= y when comparing a bunch of like devices like DACs. Then you ARE confusing comparisons and tests. They do not do DBTs, they do blind comparisons. There is all the difference in the world. bob |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"Scott" wrote in message
Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. I think that it is instructive to practice a little symmetry here. The symmetrical question is: Do sighted tests need to be "calibrated" ? I've never seen anybody discuss this question, probably because there is little if any apparent problem with sighted tests lacking sensitivity. Sighted tests almost always produce results that are favorable to a positive hypothesis. Why isn't the fact that sighted tests almost always produce results that are favorable to a positive hypothesis a problem? A null with no calibration has too many variables. Isn't a postive result with no calibration equally problematical? Don't sighted evaluations always have more variables than the corresponding `blind tests since blind tests reduce the number of variables? |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:03:39 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: OTOH, they and 'Hi-Fi News' are certainly more entertaining than the US rags, and that's mostly what magazines are for anyway; entertainment. Magazines are mostly about generating revenue primarily through subscriptions and advertising. They use "entertainment" as one element of their business model: they promote the "entertainment" of their subscribers as a means of attracting advertising, and the subscriptions and newstand sales are merely "objective" data to support their pitch to the advertisers. My god Dick, what a champion of the obvious you are today 8^). All entertainment is based on that model. Do you think, for instance, that commercial TV (or radio) exists solely to entertain you? It seeks to entertain solely to get you to view the advertising. Besides, I was talking about magazines from the reader's perspective, not from the publishers'. They are mostly about entertaining one with articles and features about subject matter likely to be of interest to the reader. Occasionally they also inform, but mostly they just entertain. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:36:00 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jun 21, 11:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: I agree that many audio subjects CAN be distilled into their basic technologies and that the analysis of same is incontrovertible. My point = is that logic doesn't always reflect human experience. IOW, humans aren't always logical. Sounds like you're thinking the same way Arny was when he used the term "rational." This is especially true with something as personal and emotional as listening to music. =A0 I would submit that this has nothing to do with music, and everything to do with some deep human need 1) to acquire things, and 2) to feel some sense of efficacy and discernment. snip But this example DOES acknowledge it. Mr. Hughes clearly states that ""On= a point-by-point basis, CD beats vinyl at every juncture. It has less background noise, a broader dynamic range, greater separation, and lower peak-level distortion." Looks mighty like an acknowledgement of what engineering and science *can* tell us about audio to me. OK, now look at the second half of the quote, where he clearly rejects things science and engineering can tell us about audio: No, he merely states an observed phenomenon (one that he is far from being alone in observing) that seems to reject what science and engineering tells us about vinyl records. ...Despite its faults, LP often recreates the emotional content of the music (and the performance). What's harder to get from CD is the sam= e musical honesty and cohesive integrity you achieve with LPs-- the sense = of real people playing real instruments in a tangible space." Leaving aside the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about "recreating emotional content," it is trivially easy to achieve exactly the same experience from a CD that one gets from vinyl--just make a CDR of the vinyl. It takes very little science to demonstrate that. While it is possible to achieve the same emotional experience with CD that the best vinyl can provide (and I don't mean by merely copying a vinyl record to CD, either), it is rarely done and it is VERY easy to do. Why this wouldn't be the goal of all record producers is beyond me, but apparently it isn't. snip Perhaps you are confusing blind comparisons with something worthy of the term "test"? I am confusing nothing. They say that they do blind comparisons especiall= y when comparing a bunch of like devices like DACs. Then you ARE confusing comparisons and tests. They do not do DBTs, they do blind comparisons. There is all the difference in the world. Then the difference is lost upon me. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:13:41 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:03:39 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote (in article ): Audio Empire wrote: OTOH, they and 'Hi-Fi News' are certainly more entertaining than the US rags, and that's mostly what magazines are for anyway; entertainment. Magazines are mostly about generating revenue primarily through subscriptions and advertising. They use "entertainment" as one element of their business model: they promote the "entertainment" of their subscribers as a means of attracting advertising, and the subscriptions and newstand sales are merely "objective" data to support their pitch to the advertisers. My god Dick, what a champion of the obvious you are today 8^). I would be more than happy to conceded the title to you. All entertainment is based on that model. Do you think, for instance, that commercial TV (or radio) exists solely to entertain you? Why would you even assume such that a question like this is necessary and not completely rhetorical? Or maybe I missed the sarcastic irony emoticon. Besides, I was talking about magazines from the reader's perspective, not from the publishers'. But it is ENTIRELY the publishers choice that sets that perspective. When you pick up ANY magazine, you have no choice whatsoever what to read, only the choice of what NOT to read. The notion that the reader has ANY control over the perspective other than refusal is, well, ... Seems to me that you are arguing a non issue. I read audio magazines to be entertained and to see what's new in the industry. Magazines are good for that. Occasionally, a magazine article about a new product piques my interest such as several articles I've read about the new Magnepan MG-1.7s. The industry "pundits" are raving about it. I went top my local Maggie dealer to see what all the hullaballoo is about. They are easily the most speaker for $2000 on the market today. They are very good; better than anything I've heard from Winey and company for a long time. Without the audio rags, I wouldn't have known about them. Sometimes I read something that actually teaches me something about which I was unfamiliar. A recent article about tone-arm and cartridge geometry in one of the US rags comes to mind here. They are mostly about entertaining one with articles and features about subject matter likely to be of interest to the reader. But more of interest to the advertiser, in that it's all about getting the reader's attention. That's their agenda, not the reader's. Occasionally they also inform, but mostly they just entertain. But earlier you said, among other things: ""Hi Fi Choice" is a magazine that I admire more and more. They not only listen subjectively, but they also do measurement tests of equipment and they do DBTs as well. Like most hobbyist publications, the Brits just seem to do it better. Better writing, better content, more in-depth evaluations..." Now, while you certainly do not state so explicitly and, indeed, you do refer to "hobbyist publications", but I find it a bit odd that things like "measurements" and "DBTs" and "in-depth evaluations" and the like are concepts compatible with "mostly" entertainment. I am not entertained by measurements, nor am I entertained by DBTs. I use them to learn. So, now I'm to be crucified for finding the learning process entertaining? I find myself clearly able to separate entertainment from information, but maybe that's just something quirky about me. Or perhaps that I'm more entertained by a documentary on TV that teaches me something I didn't know than by a mindless sitcom or reality TV show means that there is something quirky about me. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 22, 10:03=A0am, Scott wrote:
Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the test sensitive to audible differences? The methodology has been used thousands of times in listening tests, often with audible results. Were the subjects sensitive to audible differences? No way to know is there? The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known to be sensitive to audible differences. In addition, many of the subjects in that test specifically claimed to be able to hear differences between the very devices being tested. And they were able to hear differences in noise floors in this very test. bob |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 22, 8:19=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:03=A0am, Scott wrote: Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the test sensitive to audible differences? The methodology has been used thousands of times in listening tests, often with audible results. A broad vague overview does not make any individual test sensitive. people have crossed the street billions of times around the world over the decades. doesn't mean you don't need to look both ways to avoid being run over. Were the subjects sensitive to audible differences? No way to know is there? The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known to be sensitive to audible differences. really? All of them? Nah. In addition, many of the subjects in that test..... "That" test? This was an answer to a question posed about ABX DBTs in general. No specific test was refferenced in *my* post. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 22, 3:03=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:07=3DA0am, wrote: My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to audible differences? No way to know is there? Assuming that there was a need for calibration. The M&M test was about the audibility of "bottlenecking" a hi-rez signal. What calibration signal would one use other than a bottlenecked signal (one would have to otherwise some audiophiles would claim that the calibration signal was not adapted for its intended purpose), so for calibration one would use the signal that is going to be tested. You say "was the test sensitive to audible differences". Before the test you don't know whether or not there are audible differences! Now assume that the differences were audible, how did you determine that they are, in heavily biased sighted listening tests, in "non- calibrated" blind tests? What is perhaps worth mentioning is that on the AES forum none of the comments referred to this particular calibration issue. What is further worth mentioning is that in all those (AES) papers where blind tests have been conducted calibration was never ever mentioned. Klaus |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 23, 7:44=A0pm, wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:03=3DA0pm, Scott wrote: On Jun 18, 7:07=3D3DA0am, wrote: My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just = a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result= ? Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to audible differences? No way to know is there? Assuming that there was a need for calibration. The M&M test was about the audibility of "bottlenecking" a hi-rez signal. What calibration signal would one use other than a bottlenecked signal (one would have to otherwise some audiophiles would claim that the calibration signal was not adapted for its intended purpose), so for calibration one would use the signal that is going to be tested. The same signals one would use to test any set up for sensitivity to audible differences. You say "was the test sensitive to audible differences". Before the test you don't know whether or not there are audible differences! True, nor do you "know" that any given test will reveal audible differences should there be audible differences. Given the body of knowledge on the thresholds of human hearing that aspect of any given ABX DBT can be gauged before conducting any further ABX DBTs. How on earth would it ever be anything but a good idea to do so? Now assume that the differences were audible, how did you determine that they are, in heavily biased sighted listening tests, in "non- calibrated" blind tests? Why are you asking about sighted tests? The question was do we need to "calibrate" blind tests. The answer remains yes regardless of any discussion of sighted tests. I'm really not interested in red herring arguments. How would anything about sighted tests affect the need or lack of need to calibrate blind tests to eliminate the possibility of lack of test sensitivity to audible differences in the case of a null result? What is perhaps worth mentioning is that on the AES forum none of the comments referred to this particular calibration issue. What is further worth mentioning is that in all those (AES) papers where blind tests have been conducted calibration was never ever mentioned. In the end the AES is just a group of people with it's own baggage. Show me one published scientific researcher who would suggest checking a DBT for sensitivity is anything other than a good idea. Show me one scientist who will disagree with the assertion that without checking any given ABX DBT test for sensitivity a solid null (not one that is dancing on the threshold of a positive result) leaves us with three basic possible explanations. 1. the listener was not sensitive to audible differences. 2. audible differences were masked in that particlular test. 3 There were no audible differences present. Calibrate the test and 1 and 2 are profoundly reduced as possible correct conclusions. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"Scott" wrote in message
The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known to be sensitive to audible differences. really? All of them? Nah. Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to hear, and criticize those who have failed to hear purported differences before them, also fail to hear when appropriate controls are added. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 23, 10:44=A0pm, wrote:
What is further worth mentioning is that in all those (AES) papers where blind tests have been conducted calibration was never ever mentioned. Of course not. "Calibration" is just blowing smoke. It doesn't even have a fixed meaning here. Looks at the quotes in the OP. It seems to mean something different every time a poster reaches for it. The most important purpose of peer review is to confirm that the methodology of a study is sound. The peer reviewers did that. Which is why the only recourse left is to trash peer review and make fuzzy appeals using terminology one has only a shaky grasp of. bob |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jun 23, 7:44=A0pm, wrote: On Jun 22, 3:03=3DA0pm, Scott wrote: On Jun 18, 7:07=3D3DA0am, wrote: My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just = a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result= ? Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to audible differences? No way to know is there? Assuming that there was a need for calibration. The M&M test was about the audibility of "bottlenecking" a hi-rez signal. What calibration signal would one use other than a bottlenecked signal (one would have to otherwise some audiophiles would claim that the calibration signal was not adapted for its intended purpose), so for calibration one would use the signal that is going to be tested. The same signals one would use to test any set up for sensitivity to audible differences. There is no such single thing as a "one size fits all" test signal. As rule, different audible differences are most obvious with different test signals. For example, a test for level mismatch might be best tested using one kind of test signal, and a test for nonlinear distortion might be tested using a different kind of test signal. This is clearly the case for tests involving test equipment, and it is also true for listening tests. Even high end reviewers have been telling us for decades that certain differences are best heard with certain recordings. Admittedly we have to treat knowlege obtained from high end reviewers a bit advisedly due to their proven track record for claiming the existence of audible differences that in fact cannot be heard in bias-controlled listening tests. But in this case I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt in this particular matter, because reliable listening tests show that some music is better than others for various kinds of listening tests. You say "was the test sensitive to audible differences". Before the test you don't know whether or not there are audible differences! True, nor do you "know" that any given test will reveal audible differences should there be audible differences. Agreed. You actually have to do some listening tests, or know the results of other relevant listening tests in order to make good choices of test signals. In some cases psychoacoustics or ven just common sense can give clues about the characteristics of recordings that are more likely to give sensitive results. However, this case is a little different. My previous comments relate to situations where audible differences are known to be reliably heard. The results of previous relevant listening tests of this kind have already reliably shown that there is *no such thing* as a normal musical recording where diferences were reliably heard. It has also been found that there are no known exceptional (in a good way) musical recordings where differences were reliably heard. This is like saying that there is no horse that is best for finding the Lost Grail, because the Lost Grail has never been found. Once certain very large efforts have been put into finding something, it is not reasonable to criticize people who fail to find it. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:41:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott" wrote in message The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known to be sensitive to audible differences. really? All of them? Nah. Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to hear, and criticize those who have failed to hear purported differences before them, also fail to hear when appropriate controls are added. But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no differences TO hear? |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 24, 9:38=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Jun 23, 7:44=3DA0pm, wrote: On Jun 22, 3:03=3D3DA0pm, Scott wrote: On Jun 18, 7:07=3D3D3DA0am, wrote: My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to audible differences? No way to know is there? Assuming that there was a need for calibration. The M&M test was about the audibility of "bottlenecking" a hi-rez signal. What calibration signal would one use other than a bottlenecked signal (one would have to otherwise some audiophiles would claim that the calibration signal was not adapted for its intended purpose), so for calibration one would use the signal that is going to be tested. The same signals one would use to test any set up for sensitivity to audible differences. There is no such single thing as a "one size fits all" test signal. Of course not Arny. Hence my use of the word signal*s* which is the plural of "signal." |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:41:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Scott" wrote in message The subjects were human beings. Human beings are known to be sensitive to audible differences. really? All of them? Nah. Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to hear, and criticize those who have failed to hear purported differences before them, also fail to hear when appropriate controls are added. But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no differences TO hear? The differences caused by passing through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz ???bottleneck" can be measured with sensitive equipment, so they are there. The question is whether anyone's hearing is good enough to detect them. One thing, though: the result would have been much more interesting if the test had progressively shortened the wordlength until the test subjects could reliably hear a difference. The experiment would have been more difficult and time-consuming, though. Andrew. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:41:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): [ Excess quotation snipped. -- dsr ] Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to hear, and criticize those who have failed to hear purported differences before them, also fail to hear when appropriate controls are added. But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no differences TO hear? If there are no differences to hear, then whether or not a particular listener can hear it should not even be a question. It's moot. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jun 24, 9:38 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message [ Excess quotation snipped. -- dsr ] There is no such single thing as a "one size fits all" test signal. Of course not Arny. Hence my use of the word signal*s* which is the plural of "signal." The use of a plural was logically cancelled out by the word "same" that preceeded it. IOW, one would not use the same signals but rather different signals, depending on exactly which different audible difference one was seeking to hear. The the whole concept of the sentence was cancelled out by the fact that there is no known audible difference in the situation that was being discussed. If a difference, such as excessively high sample rates, is known to be generally not audible, then there is no such thing as a signal that "...one would use to test any set up for sensitivity to audible differences." No known reliably audible difference was being tested for. IOW, we have the obvious fallacy: What test signal does one use to listen for inaudible differences? ;-) |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 07:54:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:41:31 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): [ Excess quotation snipped. -- dsr ] Good point. Experience shows that many who profess to hear, and criticize those who have failed to hear purported differences before them, also fail to hear when appropriate controls are added. But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no differences TO hear? If there are no differences to hear, then whether or not a particular listener can hear it should not even be a question. It's moot. I propose that even if there were differences (like between speakers or phono cartridges or amplifiers) and the person listening for those differences had a "tin ear" when it comes to listening to reproduced music, that person likely wouldn't hear them. Then it comes down to that old Frederick Nietsche connundrum first postulated in his "Man and Superman": "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it fall, did it make a sound?" |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
Scott wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:07=A0am, wrote: In an older thread about the Meyer/Moran study relating to the audibility of "bottlenecking" the output of SACD through the A/D/A section of a CD-recorder, the need of calibration was mentioned: "Your results weren't calibrated, because you didn't come up with any measurement of the differences that your experimental setup could actually detect with your chosen source material and test subjects. This could have been done by generating test material with known degradations and determining which of these were audible. In other words, by generating positive differences that could be detected, not negative differences which could not be detected." The same author in a current thread said: "The real flaw is that there was no calibration of the source material, equipment, room, etc. as to resolution and suitability to detect the effects being evaluated". My question is, is there a real need for calibration or is this just a demand of audiophiles because the test came up with a negative result? Klaus Of course it does otherwise you have no way of gauging the sensitivity of the test. Anull with no calibration has too many variables. was the test sensitive to audible differences? Were the subjects sensitive to audible differences? No way to know is there? The M&M test setup was sensitive enough to reveal a flaw in one of the players (which was then replaced); it was also sensitive enough to reveal the different noise floors during 'silence', between DSD and DSD--Redbook, when the volume was raised ~15dB. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 24, 12:35=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no differences TO hear? Without testing for sensitivity the answer to your question is yes. It means that they either "can't" hear or there are simply differences to hear or they simply can't discriminate those under that particular test. It is easy enough to screw up such a test. Just continue to test on ABX with differences that are near the threshold of audibility way beyond the threshold of listener fatigue and you will likely get a false negative. That would be one of many ways one can take a simple ABX DBT and make it insensitive to actual audible differences. There are a lot of ways to get bad data with any given ABX DBT. Why so many folks want to ignore or deny this simple fact is beyond me. testing any ABX DBT for sensitivity along with following a number of other protocols to prevent bad data only makes for better tests. Not sure why some folks here dismiss such care as unneeded or seem to be flat out against such due care. this is the sort of rigore that sperates real scientific research and amatuer weekend "science" doen by hobbyists in their garages and basements. It's fine if one wants to have fun playing scientist but it aint real science. I suppose if one wants to assert that the "research of the weekend warrior as the equal to real scientific research it would make sense to dismiss the rigor of things like test calibration. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
On Jun 25, 10:15=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote: The same signals one would use to test any set up for sensitivity to audible differences. There is no such single thing as a "one size fits all" test signal. Of course not Arny. Hence my use of the word signal*s* which is the plural of "signal." And the use of the word "same" means what? It means "same." Why are you and Arny having such difficulty with this simple idea? I'll spell it out. The same test signals (plural) that would be used to test for sensitivty for any ABX DBT could have been used for the specific test the OP asked about. That was his question, what signal would be used. The OP used the word in the singular form but I changed it to plural since I knew it wouldn't be one single signal. Hope that clears things up. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do blind tests need being "calibrated" ?
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jun 24, 12:35 pm, Audio Empire wrote: But does that mean that they "can't" hear or that there are simply no differences TO hear? Without testing for sensitivity the answer to your question is yes. The outcome of any test you run with a negative result, can be interpreted as follows: It means that they either "can't" hear or there are simply differences to hear or they simply can't discriminate those under that particular test. That includes any so-called sensitivity tests. Let's review the current situation. There are no extant tests of the kind that we are discussing that have had positive outcomes. Thousands of such tests have been attempted in a wide variety of circumstances. It is easy enough to screw up such a test. This dodges addressing the current situation where thousands of listening tests have been run to show an audible difference due to excess sample rates with no known positive outcomes when appropriate experimental controls were in place. Just continue to test on ABX with differences that are near the threshold of audibility way beyond the threshold of listener fatigue and you will likely get a false negative. Since you specifically mention ABX, are you saying that there is no such thing as listener fatique in sighted evaluations? Or are you saying that some other methodology, such as ABC/hr is not at least equally fatiguing? Are you asserting that all of the thousands of failed tests were all due to listener fatique? Or, are just just dragging out an old, tired red herring? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs | Audio Opinions |