| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#481
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Mark, what you write is very interesting. I'm current doing some reading in the current and back issues of a scholarly journal called "Music Perception" (University of California Press), and some of the pieces there are applicable to our questions about audio listening, I believe. I'll report here about what I learn, as I learn it. Jenn, thanks for your kind remarks, and we look forward to hearing about what you discover. And also thanks to you and Norm for the recommendation of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble, which interests me too. Mark |
|
#482
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Aug 2005 22:44:51 GMT, "Mark DeBellis"
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No, you can't, and you certainly haven't. If you could, why haven't you collected the $5,000 prize? Say, what is this $5,000 test, anyway? :-) Since there is a fairly high probability that, after enough trials, *someone* will appear to distinguish the cables even though the outcome is just chance -- -- in the same way that, if you flip a coin enough times, eventually you're likely to get 10 heads in a row -- Indeed, but the 'subjectivists', despite all their vociferous claims of 'night and day' differences, don't seem to have the courage of their convictions. -- why don't we get together, all enter, and agree to split the money? Has anybody figured the odds, anyway? What does it cost to enter? :-) The odds are about 20:1, by definition, and there's no cost of entry. Given that the odds of winning the same amount in the lottery are much worse, what does that tell you about the *real* confidence of the 'subjectivists' here? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#483
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No, you can't, and you certainly haven't. If you could, why haven't you collected the $5,000 prize? Say, what is this $5,000 test, anyway? :-) Since there is a fairly high probability that, after enough trials, *someone* will appear to distinguish the cables even though the outcome is just chance -- -- in the same way that, if you flip a coin enough times, eventually you're likely to get 10 heads in a row -- -- why don't we get together, all enter, and agree to split the money? Has anybody figured the odds, anyway? What does it cost to enter? :-) Mark It doesn't cost anything to enter, but then it also doesn't cost anything to "contribute". A problem. There is absolutely no assurance that if somebody did win there would actually be money contributed. And that's what separates this little charade from reality. When they have all sent legally binding promissory notes to an escrow holder, then we will know they are serious.. I see that this is to be the strawman who provides the excuses this time round. Given the relative degrees of honesty shown in the debate so far, I personally would have no doubt regarding who is to be more trusted in this matter. It would be those who have offered to put up the money, not those who have persistently ducked the chance to prove their beliefs, mock the objectivists, and pocket a fair wedge of cash. As previously noted, once time and place has been agreed, there's certainly no problem so far as I am concerned, about liquidating my share of the money and placing it in the hands of an agreed third party. Quite happy to provide legally biding promissory notes of the sort that have 'In God we Trust' incribed on them, along with a nice picture of that famous objectivist Ben Franklin..... :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#485
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Maybe you have noticed that much of this mental noise Cheap shot. If I understand the point you go on to make, quick-switch tests do not always involve the comparison of short snippets. Sometimes they involve, rather: listening to a stretch of A in order to establish a context, and then listening to a short portion of B, and evaluating how well B fits in that context. Yes? Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. But I think what I've said applies to this sort of test. The thing is, you have never done this kind of test and go on *speculating* what might be flawed. I have done the test and have *experienced* certain sensations, which I try to convey typing here. This is how I'm listening to a test. I do not concentrate on certain instruments, but try to hear into the space in front and around me. And at the same time understand what the composer wanted to express: his joy or sadness, his love, desperation, celebration, meditation... Somehow also the musician feels the same and adds to the initial expression of the composer his interpretation. If we are asking what such tests establish and why, then it is important to understand what the tests involve. But I think basically I do: it's discrimination. I'm not sure why you think it's essential to actually *experience* such a test from the point of view of a subject, in order to understand why it shows what it shows (any more than it is necessary to build a switchbox). You're not saying that when a person experiences the test, he or she somehow *sees* that the test is valid for the relevant purposes? That would be like saying, a person won't understand why sighted comparison is valid unless they experience the sound of the cables for themselves. It's not as if the experience of the test establishes its own validity. Yeah, doing the test you can see immediately the shorter the gap between the feeds, the more sensitivity to changes is there. When you compare two colors, you can best see the difference when they are concentric squares. More gap, less sensitivity. And all the psychoacoustic phenomena have been found by scientifically testing not speculating. If in order to do a quick-switch test properly, one would have to understand and feel at one with the composer's joy, then the whole idea of making this a repeatable, objective matter would be in big trouble. I descibed my way of joyful listening, what is so important for your own argumentation. It is possible doing an ABX test without sacrificing your joy, it is like always. The test situation doesn't need to change your listening attitude. And then when I feel like switching, the performance goes on without interruption. The piece continues on the same spot. A little "click" doesn't dusturb me, but otherwise it is important that both streams are in sync and there is no perceivable silence. This is a quick switch test. And what is short is not the music snippet, but the switching action. Compare that with changing the speaker cables or whatever in a long break etc. Even a *one* second break is already disturbing and brings me back into the brain... And you want to know how it sounds when *not* in the brain. This is how from my experience I'm able to detect very miniscule differences between two feeds. I doubt that your experience tells you, by itself, that if you don't detect a difference in that experience then there is no difference over long-term listening. That's a question of empirical psychology that's not revealed in any immediate experience. Mark If there is a difference that is immediately detectable, it can best be detected this way. To this category belong: _ difference in level _ tonal difference (frequency dependent) _ distortion, intermodulation and other non-linear effects _ soundstage, spacial resolution, imaging or whatever 3-dimensional impression _ what people call "lifelike" quality and similar unidentifiable desciptions _ added noise, pops, hum Some tests require certain conditions. To determine the threshold of hearing needs a rest time at very low environmental noise levels. So basically all sonic differences can be detected in a quick switch test. Maybe the fatigue/headache etc. which is not related to any sonic difference can *not* be detected. The question is, Does this combination no sonic difference ----- fatigue exist? I always found sonic differences to be the reason. But I can imagine an unhearable but high level of ultrasonic sound would create headache and even hearing loss. The same is true for infrasound. Luckily our speakers can hardly produce any of these, they have already enough trouble with the audible range. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#486
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Mark DeBellis" wrote: Ban wrote: Jenn wrote: Indeed true, in my opinion. Listening to music, for most people, is largely a right-brain based experience. For good discussions of this, see Gardner: Frames of Mind and on a less technical level, Kerman: Listen. At the end of the day, I think that the left brain vs. right brain ways of dealing with the world might well be the basis for the heated arguments on this topic. For example, a person who experiences music in a highly right-brain oriented way, would, I believe, have a great deal of difficulty during the experience of a quick switch test. I hope to experience such a test soon which will help inform this thesis. Yes Jenn, that is the only way. Maybe you have noticed that much of this mental noise Cheap shot. If I understand the point you go on to make, quick-switch tests do not always involve the comparison of short snippets. Sometimes they involve, rather: listening to a stretch of A in order to establish a context, and then listening to a short portion of B, and evaluating how well B fits in that context. Yes? Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. But I think what I've said applies to this sort of test. I also have a question: I admit that I haven't yet read up on testing, but I will as time allows. Meanwhile, could you tell me if the testing allows for listening to stretch A on one piece of gear (say, a 1 min. excerpt), then listening to the same excerpt on another piece of gear? |
|
#487
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... Ban wrote: Jenn wrote: snip, to focus on a particular piece of content And then when I feel like switching, the performance goes on without interruption. The piece continues on the same spot. A little "click" doesn't dusturb me, but otherwise it is important that both streams are in sync and there is no perceivable silence. This is a quick switch test. And what is short is not the music snippet, but the switching action. Compare that with changing the speaker cables or whatever in a long break etc. Even a *one* second break is already disturbing and brings me back into the brain... And you want to know how it sounds when *not* in the brain. This is how from my experience I'm able to detect very miniscule differences between two feeds. I doubt that your experience tells you, by itself, that if you don't detect a difference in that experience then there is no difference over long-term listening. That's a question of empirical psychology that's not revealed in any immediate experience. Mark, Ban's approach is supported by the findings in Oohashi's test that the emotional activation of the brain in response to music in his test took about a minute and a half to build or to dissipate. And it was correlated with "quality of sound" ratings. Moreover, common sense and my experience says that if you are to evaluate differences affecting musical reproduction, the switch must be "in context" so the flow of music is not interrupted. In my experience, such switching allows comparison of what the brain expects (from DUT "A") in comparison to what it hears (via DUT "B"). Any discrepancy is heightened. Without "flow" this cannot occur, especially if part of the reaction is from the non-rationale areas of the brain. Switching with syncronized playback using pieces of music that are more than "sound snippets" are accordingly not peripheral to valid open-ended evaluation of musical reproduction, but are essential to it IMO. And even this, again IMO, should be undertaken as a "focus factor" after more extended, longer term listening to the DUT's. For it is this latter that is most likely to raise to consciousness the areas of reproduction that need investigation. |
|
#488
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 27 Aug 2005 22:44:51 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" snip, not essential to following -- why don't we get together, all enter, and agree to split the money? Has anybody figured the odds, anyway? What does it cost to enter? :-) The odds are about 20:1, by definition, and there's no cost of entry. Given that the odds of winning the same amount in the lottery are much worse, what does that tell you about the *real* confidence of the 'subjectivists' here? :-) It tells me that we are smart enough for starters to want Escrow, Baby! :-) |
|
#489
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: wrote: 2) We could subject you to a blind test, to determine whether you can indeed distinguish between these cables when you do not know which is which. This could eliminate imagined sonic difference as an explanation (although, admittedly, it cannot confirm it). Not to quibble, and I don't disagree with what you are basically saying in this post, but aren't you entitled to claim more here than you do? If he fails to distinguish the cables, then doesn't that confirm that the difference he heard was imaginary? Alas, statistics doesn't let you draw that conclusion. We set up a null hyothesis--"You cannot hear a difference between these cables"--and set a significance threshold. If he tops the threshold, you've disproved the null hypothesis. But if he doesn't top the threshold, all you've done is failed to disprove the null hypothesis. This has nothing to do with audio, BTW; it's a law of statistics, and affects any statistical test. Well, hang on a sec though. Suppose it seems to someone that they hear a difference between two cables. If the difference is not (entirely) imaginary, then the person is detecting a difference. And if he is detecting a difference, then we can predict from this that he is very likely, in a blind test, to distinguish the cables significantly better than chance. So if he does *not* so distinguish the cables in such a test, that is evidence that the apparent difference was imaginary. I don't see what's wrong with that reasoning, or why statistics blocks it. The other possibility is that the test itself as conducted interferer's with the perception noted under other conditions. |
|
#490
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 28 Aug 2005 21:42:08 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: What DATA are you talking about? This is not and cannot be scientific experiment. I am talking about my experiences and the reports of others with similar experiences. Excuse me? You made the very testable claim that you can hear the difference between cables. Fine, let's test it. No, it's not testable. That's the point. Oh right, so you can only hear differences when you're not being tested? How frighfully convenient................ It's 'DBT Anxiety'. Closely related to 'expectation bias'. According to current scientific theory (and as a student of the philosophy of science, I presume you will not come back with the old "but that's just a theory" line), there are basically three possible reasons (assuming no mechanical failures, like bad connectors) why you might have such an experience: 1) The electrical characteristics of those cables are such that one attenuates the signal substantially more than the other, resulting in an audible decrease in the volume emerging from the speakers. 2) The electrical characteristics of those cables are such that one attenuates certain frequency ranges of the signal substantially more than the other, resulting in an audible difference in the frequency response emerging from the speakers. 3) You imagined that you heard a difference, based not on the sound produced but on other things you knew or believed about those cables. That's it. So far as I know, physics has discovered no other possible explanations for audible differences between cables beyond #1 and 2 above. As for #3, the propensity of humans to hear differences where none exist is well-established. I'm not sure what electrical differences are possible. The differences I heard in the cables' sound are hard to describe, but I'll try. High frequency transients (e.g., brushed cymbals) seemed more realistic and detailed, with more distinctness between events. Depth of image was somewhat greater. Voices were more palpable. Bass lines were stronger. The 'image' was overall more vivid, more realistic. Not only that, but these traits were consistent between auditions and recurred over several days. Actually, what was 'vivid' was your imagination. You gave yourself away completely with your statement that your claim is not testable. I never said this was a scientific experiment. It is not, and cannot be. It's a purchasing decision over which you have no control, and which is none of your concern. I have to satisfy no scientific criteria, but merely my own personal preferences. If I hear a difference, you are in no position to say I didn't. You cannot prove, one way or the other, that I am mistaken. I am satisfied, given the very high correlation between product and sound, that I am not. I need not prove it to you or any other soul on Earth. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#491
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#492
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: I've been interested in blind testing for a while. I posted about this earlier this year. I think there is a fundamental problem in comparing A to B, in audio: that humans naturally shift their attention to new aspects of the sound when hearing the same bit of music more than once. This is certainly true. But it is true for ANY audio comparison, sighted or blind. Of course. That's why I phrased it "comparing A to B"-- not "comparing A to B blind." And it ought to give proponents of "long-term listening" pause. After all, a valid comparison requires that you keep all variables constant except the one you are testing. But, in a listening test, the subject is a variable, and the subject is changing constantly. That fact can confound any comparison, if not properly controlled. I don't see what "long-term listening" has to do with it. This phenomenon that one keeps shifting one's attention to different things operates on the small scale and the large scale. Suppose I listen to track 1 of some CD, with amplifier A. Then I hook up Amplifier B and listen again. Listening to A, I might have heard things like the quality of the bassline, the smoothness of the midrange, etc. Then I start to listen to B. I have been programmed with certain expectations and a memory of the last details I heard--and, although I've experimented with many styles of blind tests, I have not found a way to escape those expectations. And, listening to a new piece of music twice, I naturally hear different things the second time. Maybe this time I hear the counterpoint. That doesn't necessarily have to do with the amplifier--it is just a normal phenomenon. Much classical music uses repeats: a section of music is played twice. Why isn't this boring? Part of the reason is this normal phenomenon that we shift our attention to new things. Some of the 'objectivists' here advocate quick switching and using very short excerpts. That does seem to get around this problem of shifting attention, but on the other hand, one is no longer listening to the music as music. I suspect that the audible qualities of equipment manifest themselves in the experience of the music--in the way our bodies move to music, in the enjoyment of the music, and so on. I find that my body often moves to music played on a boombox. I certainly enjoy music played on many different systems, of greatly varying caliber. So I suspect that, except for unlistenable levels of distortion, the audible qualities of equipment do not affect the experience of music. It's curious how "objectivists" and "subjectivists" argue about facts and evidence and so on, but I often suspect that what lies at the very heart of these disagreements is a difference in the *experience* of audio, the subjective, un-measureable sense of what it's like to listen to music on a stereo. For example, if you really mean what you say here, that audible qualities of equipment (within reason) don't affect the experience of music, then my own experience couldn't be more different. So is there any way to conduct a blind test that listens to music as music? Perhaps the test in which one lives with a component for a while, a component that is a "black box" of unknown make. You, the subject, are still changing, and that would probably introduce far too much statistical noise to ever reach a definitive (i.e., positive) result, even if your highly questionable hypothesis were true. You describe this "changing subject" as though he were changing in an arbitrary and capricious way. My own experience, which again seems to be quite different from yours, is that in long-term listening my perceptions settle in, I get familiar with the equipment, I literally learn a specific manner of listening in order to get the most out of that piece of equipment, and discover its strengths (which may not be obvious at the beginning). In any case, I don't see how a long-term blind test is in any way less appropriate than a quick switching test. It all depends on how you model the human organism--model him your way, it seems to make no sense. Model him my way, it makes a lot of sense. Your own experience probably matches your own model, and mine matches mine---what an amazing coincidence! Mike |
|
#493
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. Actually to be more fully correct, if a difference is not detected by the listener under the given test conditions, then they must sound the same under those conditions. Actually, the qualification you added does not make my statement any "more truly correct". What you were trying to say is that there might be some test conditions where the listener could detect differences. If that is the case, then the listener simply can detect differences under those test conditions, and of course the two will therefore not sound the same to that listener under those test conditions. Rather obvious, is it not? Obvious, yes, but left out of your paragraph. Your paragraph would seem to indicate that if a listener hears no differences under a specific set of conditions, then the listener will hear no differences under any conditions. This, of course, is not a given. I would then suggest that you are not reading carefully and are drawing erroneous inferences. Untrue. Your statement suggests that if a listener doesn't hear a difference in a test, that for that listener, there is no difference. That thought doesn't at all take into account, for example, test validity or testing conditions. Well, Jenn, try to read carefully now. snip Uncalled for sarcasm noted, and unappreciated. |
|
#494
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Aug 2005 23:58:36 GMT, Jenn wrote:
In article , "Mark DeBellis" wrote: If I understand the point you go on to make, quick-switch tests do not always involve the comparison of short snippets. Sometimes they involve, rather: listening to a stretch of A in order to establish a context, and then listening to a short portion of B, and evaluating how well B fits in that context. Yes? Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. But I think what I've said applies to this sort of test. I also have a question: I admit that I haven't yet read up on testing, but I will as time allows. Meanwhile, could you tell me if the testing allows for listening to stretch A on one piece of gear (say, a 1 min. excerpt), then listening to the same excerpt on another piece of gear? You can listen for seconds, minutes, hours or days, the only known difference is that, under controlled conditions where known small differences exist, short-snippet listening has proven to be more sensitive. We hear lots of hot air about the 'gestalt' of long-term listening, but closer investigation *always* reveals that these people already *know* what they're listening to. In other words, they are using a 'sighted' technique which immediately disqualifies itself for subtle differences. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#495
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Oh right, so you can only hear differences when you're not being tested? How frighfully convenient................ It's 'DBT Anxiety'. Closely related to 'expectation bias'. Nope. Totally unrelated. Also a pathetic excuse. You wrote an entire paragraph describing the differences between two cables, and insisted that these numerous and clear differences occur every single time you listen to the cables in question--and yet you cannot distinguish these two cables when you don't know which one is in circuit? I have not tried blind testing and have no interest in doing so, despite your vigorous protestations. It would serve no purpose. 'Serving a purpose' is very important to me. This is not an academic exercise, but a purchase desision. If I'm satisfied by whatever method I chose to use to help me decide, there is no reason for you to object. It's MY money, not yours, after all. If I think the cables are worth $100, that's my decision and it's final. If I think tghe cables are better than the $50 ones I had been using, that's my decision and it's final. I never said this was a scientific experiment. It is not, and cannot be. It's a purchasing decision over which you have no control, and which is none of your concern. I have to satisfy no scientific criteria, but merely my own personal preferences. If I hear a difference, you are in no position to say I didn't. Oh, yes we are. No, you are not. Perhaps your hearing has not been trained as well as mine. People frequently say that they hear a difference when there is no difference to be heard. Impossible to prove. We can certainly say that they didn't hear a difference. No, you cannot. What distinguishes that case from yours? Uncertainty. Without measurements or listening tests, we can't say for sure that your two cables sound the same. But the uncertainty goes both ways--you can't say for sure that they are audibly different. That's correct. But I put my money where my mouth is. That says something, certainly. You cannot prove, one way or the other, that I am mistaken. I am satisfied, given the very high correlation between product and sound, that I am not. I need not prove it to you or any other soul on Earth. No you don't, but you really ought to stop making claims in public that you cannot support. I claim ONLY that I heard a difference whenever I made the switch, and without fail. This sort of claim requires no support, because it is a report merely of MY experience. Ever read Hume? My other similar trials of products (CD cleaners, amps, etc.) either did not show differences (consistently) or did (consistently). In no case was there a product which on Tuesday performed marvelously and on Thursday sounded like crap. Never. Either the product was better or it was not, every time. It gave the same sound, every time, better or not better. There was no vacillation, no inconsistency. That is VERY hard to account for in any explanation that does not place the difference in the product itself. Whether I chose to buy a given product or not is none of your concern. |
|
#496
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#497
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote:
In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , Chung wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: Chung wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: I think you are saying the same thing that I have been trying to say, I don't think so. and you put it very well. It may be that there are differences between the presentations, but you can't detect them. You certainly reduce your ability to detect subtle differences if the presentations are far apart in time. That is why we believe that quick switching is the most effective method. It is others who have (apparently) been arguing that if you can't detect a difference, there can't *be* a difference between the presentations. If you cannot dectect a difference using quick switching under blind conditions, while you previously could detect differences under sighted conditions, then it is very likely that you simply cannot detect differences, regardless of whether there is any detectible difference. What is detectible to someone else may not be to you. And, of course, there are differences between presentations that simply are not detectible. For instance, a 0.01 dB difference in level. By a "difference between two presentations" I would understand this to mean a difference between what you perceive in one and what you perceive in the other, not just that there is some physical difference out there. No, I simply mean some physical difference in the sound waves received by your ears. OK, thank you then for the clarification. I agree with pretty much everything you say. I'm just saying something different. What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. Actually to be more fully correct, if a difference is not detected by the listener under the given test conditions, then they must sound the same under those conditions. Thank you, Jenn, for clarifying the issue so beautifully. As Mark has been arguing, the "conditions" of a quick, switch, comparative double blind abx test are quite different from extended sequential monadic listening done in a normal listening environment through various listening sessions. Since listening to music is subjective and has a strong emotional component, we cannot be sure we are hearing or measuring the same thing (Mark's main point) and we certainly *can* be sure that "under those conditions" are not the same. Indeed true, in my opinion. Listening to music, for most people, is largely a right-brain based experience. For good discussions of this, see Gardner: Frames of Mind and on a less technical level, Kerman: Listen. At the end of the day, I think that the left brain vs. right brain ways of dealing with the world might well be the basis for the heated arguments on this topic. For example, a person who experiences music in a highly right-brain oriented way, would, I believe, have a great deal of difficulty during the experience of a quick switch test. I hope to experience such a test soon which will help inform this thesis. Hi Jenn, Good to meet you. I've been thinking about these issues for a while. (I'm a tube/analog fan, although I'm giving digital a second chance after getting my Rogue Audio Chronus and hearing the fabulous headphone amp in that thing.) I agree with you that a difference in personal experience underlies the perspective of the two "camps"---or at least, I see such a difference in the posts I read here. For example, if you ask somebody to compare two pieces of equipment, and they sound quite similar (that is, they aren't grossly different), then I've noticed a couple different responses. Some people want to set up a quick-switching test. This is like getting closer and looking at finer and finer detail. Other people intuitively want to have a nice long relaxed listening session with each thing, letting their perceptions "settle in" and become focused on the unique qualities of each piece. It may be that each of these people has found a way to look closely at the particular things he/she most cares about. And of course, different people are listening *for* different things. Mike |
|
#498
|
|||
|
|||
|
Buster Mudd wrote:
And by "the kind of information that has to do with the longer-term kind of memory" are you (once again) talking about Musical Content? Because if so, that's *NOT* the "kind of information" that would allow one to discern a perceptual equivalence between an SACD player and a CD player...or between an SACD recording and a CD recording, for that matter. p.s. If a certain musical content can be heard through one piece of gear but not another, surely that *is* a difference that is relevant to audio, no? (What I have in mind here is, say, how clearly an inner voice can be heard, and I think LP and CD do sometimes differ in that respect.) Mark |
|
#499
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote:
Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. Actually to be more fully correct, if a difference is not detected by the listener under the given test conditions, then they must sound the same under those conditions. Actually, the qualification you added does not make my statement any "more truly correct". What you were trying to say is that there might be some test conditions where the listener could detect differences. If that is the case, then the listener simply can detect differences under those test conditions, and of course the two will therefore not sound the same to that listener under those test conditions. Rather obvious, is it not? Obvious, yes, but left out of your paragraph. Your paragraph would seem to indicate that if a listener hears no differences under a specific set of conditions, then the listener will hear no differences under any conditions. This, of course, is not a given. I would then suggest that you are not reading carefully and are drawing erroneous inferences. Untrue. Your statement suggests that if a listener doesn't hear a difference in a test, that for that listener, there is no difference. That thought doesn't at all take into account, for example, test validity or testing conditions. Well, Jenn, try to read carefully now. snip Uncalled for sarcasm noted, and unappreciated. What you should have noted instead is the exasperation expressed in that sentence. Exasperation that a simple sentence can be so misread due to a perception bias, despite my subsequent attempts to explain. |
|
#501
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Aug 2005 23:58:36 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , "Mark DeBellis" wrote: If I understand the point you go on to make, quick-switch tests do not always involve the comparison of short snippets. Sometimes they involve, rather: listening to a stretch of A in order to establish a context, and then listening to a short portion of B, and evaluating how well B fits in that context. Yes? Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. But I think what I've said applies to this sort of test. I also have a question: I admit that I haven't yet read up on testing, but I will as time allows. Meanwhile, could you tell me if the testing allows for listening to stretch A on one piece of gear (say, a 1 min. excerpt), then listening to the same excerpt on another piece of gear? You can listen for seconds, minutes, hours or days, the only known difference is that, under controlled conditions where known small differences exist, short-snippet listening has proven to be more sensitive. We hear lots of hot air about the 'gestalt' of long-term listening, but closer investigation *always* reveals that these people already *know* what they're listening to. But it needn't be that way, though the conditions would have to be carefully controlled. That would be a study I'd like to be part of/see the results of. |
|
#502
|
|||
|
|||
|
And then when I feel like switching, the performance goes on without
interruption. The piece continues on the same spot. A little "click" doesn't dusturb me, but otherwise it is important that both streams are in sync and there is no perceivable silence. This is a quick switch test. And what is short is not the music snippet, but the switching action. Compare that with changing the speaker cables or whatever in a long break etc. Even a *one* second break is already disturbing and brings me back into the brain... And you want to know how it sounds when *not* in the brain. This is how from my experience I'm able to detect very miniscule differences between two feeds. I doubt that your experience tells you, by itself, that if you don't detect a difference in that experience then there is no difference over long-term listening. That's a question of empirical psychology that's not revealed in any immediate experience. Mark Hi Mark, Generally on this subject of short-term and long-term listening: What really matters to me is what it is like to live with a component. Any test that compares two sounds (asks one to identify a difference between them), whether snippets or whole pieces, is a different context. And the shorter the duration, the further removed from the context of normal listening. In testing psychiatric medications, placebo-controlled tests are necessary, becuase the placebo effect is real. What's curious to me is that these drug trials are fairly short compared to the duration that many people take the drugs. Of course a placebo can produce a dramatic improvement in the short term, comparable to an effective medication, but I wonder what we would find if we looked at the long term? Living with a placebo, versus living with an effective medication? In audio the placebo effect is real, of course. I know that people can be fooled into thinking there is some great improvement when nothing has changed at all. The stories one hears about this are always short-term, though: a fake switch is thrown, and the listener gushes about the immediate improvement. I understand Bob's argument: science has put limits on what the ear/auditory nerve can resolve. If it can't be resolved, then the brain can't hear a difference. As I understand the science, the researchers can take a signal, inject all sorts of small differences, and carry out all sorts of tests to see what can be resolved and what test is most sensitive. This raises the question: if the tests all involved one particular mode of operation of the brain--namely "comparing sound"---how can this ultimate limit on the ear's ability be confirmed? One thing I wonder: If we look at the noise level in the ear/auditory nerve, it puts limits on what can be resolved. But the situation is different with a repeating signal. I used to work for a firm that manufactured a kind of EEG machine for diagnosing problems of hearing. The device put a repetitive click into the patient's ear, while reading EEG at a point on the head. If you looked at the raw EEG signal, it was extremely noisy of course, and no click could be discerned. However, after averaging the EEG for 1000 periods of the click, you could see a consistent shape representing the brain's response to just that click. I think that information theory might say that a signal with high redundancy can be transmitted through a noisy channel. I wonder how the scientific limits on the auditory nerve are related to the type of signal? Note that a repeating quick-switch test signal is in fact a signal with high redundancy. Note also it is a signal with no musical content (or at least, it is some kind of rhythmic pulse but doesn't represent the music of the source signal). Mike |
|
#503
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#504
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#506
|
|||
|
|||
|
Buster Mudd wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: Buster Mudd wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: Buster Mudd wrote: I think you keep harping on this notion that our perceptions of these two very different phenomena should somehow be similar. The phenomena (musical memory & audio memory) are similar only in that they are initially triggered by an auditory stimulus; beyond that they are so dissimilar, both in their own content & in the methods by which we perceive them, that to refer to them both as "information we pick up in this way" is to incorrectly characterize them. We *don't* pick up both types of information in the same way once the auditory stimulus has gotten past the ear. I have no idea if our perceptions of them should be similar or different, but given that we have tests for one kind of information, how are we entitled to rely on those tests to tell us that there are no differences in the other kind of information? We're not; but has anyone claimed otherwise? I don't recall anyone in rec.audio.high-end ever asserting that tests...be they ABX, DBT, quick switch, slow switch, monadic, any kind of tests at all...could or couldn't determine differences in our perceptions of *musical content*. Every reference to using statistical testing to identify perceived or imagined differences I've come across here has been pertaining to sonic attributes of audio components. It was the example of SACD vs. CD that I started with, so let me return to that. I thought the idea was that certain tests could tell us that SACD and CD are perceptually equivalent (if they are). For clarity, I trust you won't mind if I rephrase that supposition as "certain tests could tell us whether or not SACD and CD are perceptually equivalent"? Because that is what you're saying, right? If the tests don't tell us that there are no differences in the kind of information that has to do with the longer-term kind of memory, how do they show perceptual equivalence? And by "the kind of information that has to do with the longer-term kind of memory" are you (once again) talking about Musical Content? Because if so, that's *NOT* the "kind of information" that would allow one to discern a perceptual equivalence between an SACD player and a CD player...or between an SACD recording and a CD recording, for that matter. As far as I can see, there could be information that we have that depends on longer-term memory that's not the sort of information about musical content you're referring to. They could both depend on longer-term memory. Mark |
|
#507
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote:
In article , "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Ban wrote: Jenn wrote: Indeed true, in my opinion. Listening to music, for most people, is largely a right-brain based experience. For good discussions of this, see Gardner: Frames of Mind and on a less technical level, Kerman: Listen. At the end of the day, I think that the left brain vs. right brain ways of dealing with the world might well be the basis for the heated arguments on this topic. For example, a person who experiences music in a highly right-brain oriented way, would, I believe, have a great deal of difficulty during the experience of a quick switch test. I hope to experience such a test soon which will help inform this thesis. Yes Jenn, that is the only way. Maybe you have noticed that much of this mental noise Cheap shot. If I understand the point you go on to make, quick-switch tests do not always involve the comparison of short snippets. Sometimes they involve, rather: listening to a stretch of A in order to establish a context, and then listening to a short portion of B, and evaluating how well B fits in that context. Yes? Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. But I think what I've said applies to this sort of test. I also have a question: I admit that I haven't yet read up on testing, but I will as time allows. Meanwhile, could you tell me if the testing allows for listening to stretch A on one piece of gear (say, a 1 min. excerpt), then listening to the same excerpt on another piece of gear? If you're asking me (?), that kind of test is possible, but it's less sensitive to (certain) differences than the sort of test described previously. (I think the problem is that it's hard to remember things from one stretch to the next.) As I understand it, the term "quick-switch" test does not apply to it. Obviously, others are much better qualified to answer this than I am. Mark |
|
#508
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ban wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: Maybe you have noticed that much of this mental noise Cheap shot. If I understand the point you go on to make, quick-switch tests do not always involve the comparison of short snippets. Sometimes they involve, rather: listening to a stretch of A in order to establish a context, and then listening to a short portion of B, and evaluating how well B fits in that context. Yes? Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. But I think what I've said applies to this sort of test. The thing is, you have never done this kind of test and go on *speculating* what might be flawed. I have done the test and have *experienced* certain sensations, which I try to convey typing here. You make it sound as if not having actually been the subject of such a test disqualifies me from writing about this in some way, but whether the tests demonstrate perceptual equivalence is not something that can simply be read off from the "sensations." This is how I'm listening to a test. I do not concentrate on certain instruments, but try to hear into the space in front and around me. And at the same time understand what the composer wanted to express: his joy or sadness, his love, desperation, celebration, meditation... Somehow also the musician feels the same and adds to the initial expression of the composer his interpretation. If we are asking what such tests establish and why, then it is important to understand what the tests involve. But I think basically I do: it's discrimination. I'm not sure why you think it's essential to actually *experience* such a test from the point of view of a subject, in order to understand why it shows what it shows (any more than it is necessary to build a switchbox). You're not saying that when a person experiences the test, he or she somehow *sees* that the test is valid for the relevant purposes? That would be like saying, a person won't understand why sighted comparison is valid unless they experience the sound of the cables for themselves. It's not as if the experience of the test establishes its own validity. Yeah, doing the test you can see immediately the shorter the gap between the feeds, the more sensitivity to changes is there. When you compare two colors, you can best see the difference when they are concentric squares. More gap, less sensitivity. But it seems to me this begs the question, because it assumes that greater sensitivity for making direct perceptual discriminations by itself establishes perceptual equivalence over longer spans. And all the psychoacoustic phenomena have been found by scientifically testing not speculating. If in order to do a quick-switch test properly, one would have to understand and feel at one with the composer's joy, then the whole idea of making this a repeatable, objective matter would be in big trouble. I descibed my way of joyful listening, what is so important for your own argumentation. It is possible doing an ABX test without sacrificing your joy, it is like always. The test situation doesn't need to change your listening attitude. And then when I feel like switching, the performance goes on without interruption. The piece continues on the same spot. A little "click" doesn't dusturb me, but otherwise it is important that both streams are in sync and there is no perceivable silence. This is a quick switch test. And what is short is not the music snippet, but the switching action. Compare that with changing the speaker cables or whatever in a long break etc. Even a *one* second break is already disturbing and brings me back into the brain... And you want to know how it sounds when *not* in the brain. This is how from my experience I'm able to detect very miniscule differences between two feeds. I doubt that your experience tells you, by itself, that if you don't detect a difference in that experience then there is no difference over long-term listening. That's a question of empirical psychology that's not revealed in any immediate experience. Mark If there is a difference that is immediately detectable, it can best be detected this way. To this category belong: _ difference in level _ tonal difference (frequency dependent) _ distortion, intermodulation and other non-linear effects _ soundstage, spacial resolution, imaging or whatever 3-dimensional impression _ what people call "lifelike" quality and similar unidentifiable desciptions _ added noise, pops, hum Some tests require certain conditions. To determine the threshold of hearing needs a rest time at very low environmental noise levels. So basically all sonic differences can be detected in a quick switch test. How does that conclusion follow? (Do you mean all sonic differences, no matter how small? Or do you mean sonic differences of all *types*, though not arbitrarily small ones?) Maybe the fatigue/headache etc. which is not related to any sonic difference can *not* be detected. The question is, Does this combination no sonic difference ----- fatigue exist? I always found sonic differences to be the reason. But I can imagine an unhearable but high level of ultrasonic sound would create headache and even hearing loss. The same is true for infrasound. Luckily our speakers can hardly produce any of these, they have already enough trouble with the audible range. This is not exactly a comforting level of demonstration. Maybe there can be other exceptions you haven't imagined yet, that don't turn out to be so fortunate? Mark |
|
#509
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message ... Ban wrote: Jenn wrote: snip, to focus on a particular piece of content And then when I feel like switching, the performance goes on without interruption. The piece continues on the same spot. A little "click" doesn't dusturb me, but otherwise it is important that both streams are in sync and there is no perceivable silence. This is a quick switch test. And what is short is not the music snippet, but the switching action. Compare that with changing the speaker cables or whatever in a long break etc. Even a *one* second break is already disturbing and brings me back into the brain... And you want to know how it sounds when *not* in the brain. This is how from my experience I'm able to detect very miniscule differences between two feeds. I doubt that your experience tells you, by itself, that if you don't detect a difference in that experience then there is no difference over long-term listening. That's a question of empirical psychology that's not revealed in any immediate experience. Mark, Ban's approach is supported by the findings in Oohashi's test that the emotional activation of the brain in response to music in his test took about a minute and a half to build or to dissipate. And it was correlated with "quality of sound" ratings. Moreover, common sense and my experience says that if you are to evaluate differences affecting musical reproduction, the switch must be "in context" so the flow of music is not interrupted. In my experience, such switching allows comparison of what the brain expects (from DUT "A") in comparison to what it hears (via DUT "B"). Any discrepancy is heightened. Without "flow" this cannot occur, especially if part of the reaction is from the non-rationale areas of the brain. Switching with syncronized playback using pieces of music that are more than "sound snippets" are accordingly not peripheral to valid open-ended evaluation of musical reproduction, but are essential to it IMO. And even this, again IMO, should be undertaken as a "focus factor" after more extended, longer term listening to the DUT's. For it is this latter that is most likely to raise to consciousness the areas of reproduction that need investigation. Fair enough. I would just say that establishing a context in a quick-switch test doesn't automatically ensure its validity, either, because the question is how to rule out the possibility that the first minute of source A has a different effect on the perception of what follows than the first minute of source B. Mark |
|
#510
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , chung
wrote: Jenn wrote: Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. Actually to be more fully correct, if a difference is not detected by the listener under the given test conditions, then they must sound the same under those conditions. Actually, the qualification you added does not make my statement any "more truly correct". What you were trying to say is that there might be some test conditions where the listener could detect differences. If that is the case, then the listener simply can detect differences under those test conditions, and of course the two will therefore not sound the same to that listener under those test conditions. Rather obvious, is it not? Obvious, yes, but left out of your paragraph. Your paragraph would seem to indicate that if a listener hears no differences under a specific set of conditions, then the listener will hear no differences under any conditions. This, of course, is not a given. I would then suggest that you are not reading carefully and are drawing erroneous inferences. Untrue. Your statement suggests that if a listener doesn't hear a difference in a test, that for that listener, there is no difference. That thought doesn't at all take into account, for example, test validity or testing conditions. Well, Jenn, try to read carefully now. snip Uncalled for sarcasm noted, and unappreciated. What you should have noted instead is the exasperation expressed in that sentence. You should have read what I wrote that didn't get approved for posting! Exasperation that a simple sentence can be so misread due to a perception bias, despite my subsequent attempts to explain. I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. |
|
#511
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote: And by "the kind of information that has to do with the longer-term kind of memory" are you (once again) talking about Musical Content? Because if so, that's *NOT* the "kind of information" that would allow one to discern a perceptual equivalence between an SACD player and a CD player...or between an SACD recording and a CD recording, for that matter. p.s. If a certain musical content can be heard through one piece of gear but not another, surely that *is* a difference that is relevant to audio, no? (What I have in mind here is, say, how clearly an inner voice can be heard, and I think LP and CD do sometimes differ in that respect.) If an inner voice can be heard clearly via one source and is obscured or masked via another, that sort of difference would be audible fairly immediately, without resorting to "longer-term kind of memory". |
|
#512
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: I have yet to see *any* of the 'objectivists' have any problem with an extended *blind* test - except to note that many decades of experimentation have shown that this is in reality a *less* sensitive method of comparison. That's not my point. My point is how you, or anyone else, intuitively reacts to the request to compare two sources of sound. What *feels* like the best way to compare? I've met people who wanted to put the two sounds right next to each other in time, and others who wanted to sit with each one for a while. This is not a matter of sighted or blind, just a matter of how to compare generally. Whether this division aligns with the subjectivist/objectivist division, I don't know. For example, what makes sense to you (say, before you had read the research)? Do you now choose to use quick-switching based on the research? Or do you also feel intuitively like that is the best way to compare things? Mike |
|
#513
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: I agree with you that a difference in personal experience underlies the perspective of the two "camps"---or at least, I see such a difference in the posts I read here. For example, if you ask somebody to compare two pieces of equipment, and they sound quite similar (that is, they aren't grossly different), then I've noticed a couple different responses. Some people want to set up a quick-switching test. This is like getting closer and looking at finer and finer detail. Other people intuitively want to have a nice long relaxed listening session with each thing, letting their perceptions "settle in" and become focused on the unique qualities of each piece. It may be that each of these people has found a way to look closely at the particular things he/she most cares about. And of course, different people are listening *for* different things. No Michael, you've only ever seen one *real* difference between the two camps. Those who complain about quick-switch tests are invariably the same ones who favour sighted listening - however much some of them may try to disguise that fact. *That* is what really does make a difference. I for one don't favor sighted comparisons (but then again I don't know if it would be accurate to say I've *complained* about quick-switch tests, or if I have gained admission to either "camp"). I have yet to see *any* of the 'objectivists' have any problem with an extended *blind* test - except to note that many decades of experimentation have shown that this is in reality a *less* sensitive method of comparison. -- If you say a test is more or less "sensitive," then the question is, sensitive to what? The thought here is that there could be a certain class of differences to which those tests are more sensitive than others, but other differences to which they not particularly sensitive and which they were not designed to detect. I don't see how what's been observed so far rules out that possibility. Mark |
|
#514
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Sep 2005 15:03:31 GMT, wrote:
wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Oh right, so you can only hear differences when you're not being tested? How frighfully convenient................ It's 'DBT Anxiety'. Closely related to 'expectation bias'. Nope. Totally unrelated. Also a pathetic excuse. You wrote an entire paragraph describing the differences between two cables, and insisted that these numerous and clear differences occur every single time you listen to the cables in question--and yet you cannot distinguish these two cables when you don't know which one is in circuit? I have not tried blind testing and have no interest in doing so, despite your vigorous protestations. It would serve no purpose. 'Serving a purpose' is very important to me. This is not an academic exercise, but a purchase desision. If I'm satisfied by whatever method I chose to use to help me decide, there is no reason for you to object. It's MY money, not yours, after all. If I think the cables are worth $100, that's my decision and it's final. If I think tghe cables are better than the $50 ones I had been using, that's my decision and it's final. That's quite correct - so it ill behooves you to insist that they sound different, when you have absolutely *no* reason to believe that this is the case. I never said this was a scientific experiment. It is not, and cannot be. It's a purchasing decision over which you have no control, and which is none of your concern. I have to satisfy no scientific criteria, but merely my own personal preferences. If I hear a difference, you are in no position to say I didn't. Oh, yes we are. No, you are not. Perhaps your hearing has not been trained as well as mine. Yes, we've heard that particular gem many times. These self-acclaimed 'Golden Ears' always turn to tin when you don't actually *know* which cable is connected. People frequently say that they hear a difference when there is no difference to be heard. Impossible to prove. Actually, trivially *easy* to prove, simply by not changing anything. We can certainly say that they didn't hear a difference. No, you cannot. Sure we can - and we do. What distinguishes that case from yours? Uncertainty. Without measurements or listening tests, we can't say for sure that your two cables sound the same. But the uncertainty goes both ways--you can't say for sure that they are audibly different. That's correct. But I put my money where my mouth is. That says something, certainly. Agreed, it certainly does................ :-) You cannot prove, one way or the other, that I am mistaken. I am satisfied, given the very high correlation between product and sound, that I am not. I need not prove it to you or any other soul on Earth. No you don't, but you really ought to stop making claims in public that you cannot support. I claim ONLY that I heard a difference whenever I made the switch, and without fail. This sort of claim requires no support, because it is a report merely of MY experience. Ever read Hume? Yes, but you don't know that there was any *real* difference to hear, because you always *knew* what was connected. Get the difference? My other similar trials of products (CD cleaners, amps, etc.) either did not show differences (consistently) or did (consistently). In no case was there a product which on Tuesday performed marvelously and on Thursday sounded like crap. Never. Either the product was better or it was not, every time. It gave the same sound, every time, better or not better. There was no vacillation, no inconsistency. That is VERY hard to account for in any explanation that does not place the difference in the product itself. It is in fact very *easy* to account for, the mechanism is known as reinforcement, and you'll find it in any psy textbook. It has nothing to do with the existence of any *real* audible difference. Whether I chose to buy a given product or not is none of your concern. Indeed, but your stated claims regarding 'cable sound' certainly are. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#515
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: I agree with you that a difference in personal experience underlies the perspective of the two "camps"---or at least, I see such a difference in the posts I read here. For example, if you ask somebody to compare two pieces of equipment, and they sound quite similar (that is, they aren't grossly different), then I've noticed a couple different responses. Some people want to set up a quick-switching test. This is like getting closer and looking at finer and finer detail. Other people intuitively want to have a nice long relaxed listening session with each thing, letting their perceptions "settle in" and become focused on the unique qualities of each piece. It may be that each of these people has found a way to look closely at the particular things he/she most cares about. And of course, different people are listening *for* different things. No Michael, you've only ever seen one *real* difference between the two camps. Those who complain about quick-switch tests are invariably the same ones who favour sighted listening - however much some of them may try to disguise that fact. *That* is what really does make a difference. The interesting thing is how subjectivists complain about the necessity of making a quick judgment when doing a blind test. Snap judgments don't seem to be a problem at all when they do it sighted! Norm Strong |
|
#516
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 1 Sep 2005 15:08:26 GMT, wrote: snip Michael's comments, as I am responding to Stewart No Michael, you've only ever seen one *real* difference between the two camps. Those who complain about quick-switch tests are invariably the same ones who favour sighted listening - however much some of them may try to disguise that fact. *That* is what really does make a difference. No, we don't favour sighted listening, except as superior to abx testing and other tests relying on short snippet, quick switch, out of musical context listening. Those happen to be blind and extended blind tests at home are very difficult to do. So we are left with long term sighted tests, with sighted quick-switching thrown in a needed. We also think the "case" against those tests being useful is strongly overstated by the abx advocates on usenet. I have yet to see *any* of the 'objectivists' have any problem with an extended *blind* test - except to note that many decades of experimentation have shown that this is in reality a *less* sensitive method of comparison. This is a canard, Stewart. Many of we subjectivists also support "blind" extended listening...but in fact it is almost impossible to do at home in a realistic way for a variety of practical reasons...inability to get long term loans, the physical aspects of "hiding" the units under test" and need for a third-party proctor. Moreover, the only switchbox I know that is available to do single-person testing is an abx box, which is a matching-identity test that is the furthest removed from ordinary home listening and of little interest to most of us. That is very different from being "opposed to blind tests" in general. |
|
#517
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
wrote: People frequently say that they hear a difference when there is no difference to be heard. Impossible to prove. Denial of reality again. This is so trivially true, and easily demonstrated empirically, that even many subjectivists won't deny it. And if all you're doing here is describing a purchasing decision, why are you so keen to deny it? Answer: Because that's not what you're doing at all. More below. snip I claim ONLY that I heard a difference whenever I made the switch, and without fail. This sort of claim requires no support, because it is a report merely of MY experience. Ever read Hume? Hume would easily see through your sophistry. You are not now claiming and have never claimed only that the two cables sounded different to you. You have consistently asserted that there IS an audible difference between them, which is what you (think you) heard. You consistently invoke your mere perception as evidence that this difference really exists. And you consistently deny--not challenge with countervailing argument, just baldly deny--all of the empirical work demonstrating that your mere perception is unconvincing as evidence that such a difference exists. And whenever the heat gets too great, and the scientific facts against you pile up too high, you retreat to your pose as a mere humble consumer trying to make a purchasing decision, so you aren't required to answer the scientific objections you have no answer for. That's sophistry, and you are not fooling anyone. bob |
|
#518
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... Jenn wrote: In article , "Mark DeBellis" wrote: Ban wrote: Jenn wrote: snip to focus Indeed true, in my opinion. Listening to music, for most people, is largely a right-brain based experience. For good discussions of this, see Gardner: Frames of Mind and on a less technical level, Kerman: Listen. At the end of the day, I think that the left brain vs. right brain ways of dealing with the world might well be the basis for the heated arguments on this topic. For example, a person who experiences music in a highly right-brain oriented way, would, I believe, have a great deal of difficulty during the experience of a quick switch test. I hope to experience such a test soon which will help inform this thesis. Yes Jenn, that is the only way. Maybe you have noticed that much of this mental noise Cheap shot. If I understand the point you go on to make, quick-switch tests do not always involve the comparison of short snippets. Sometimes they involve, rather: listening to a stretch of A in order to establish a context, and then listening to a short portion of B, and evaluating how well B fits in that context. Yes? Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. But I think what I've said applies to this sort of test. I also have a question: I admit that I haven't yet read up on testing, but I will as time allows. Meanwhile, could you tell me if the testing allows for listening to stretch A on one piece of gear (say, a 1 min. excerpt), then listening to the same excerpt on another piece of gear? If you're asking me (?), that kind of test is possible, but it's less sensitive to (certain) differences than the sort of test described previously. (I think the problem is that it's hard to remember things from one stretch to the next.) As I understand it, the term "quick-switch" test does not apply to it. Obviously, others are much better qualified to answer this than I am. Extended musical interval testing can be a quick-switched...the switching is simply the speed of switch between two sound sources. If the music is playing using two identical paths through an identical source, it can be synchronized and quick switched. This can be as simple as adjacent inputs on a preamp or amp, or as complex as relay-controlled switchboxes. However, to repeat a section becomes hard to do on a "quick switch" but not impossible so long as you are using a silver disk player and can quickly return to a start of track while simultaneously switching other components if needed (of course this assumes you want to start listening at the start of a track. LP's are manual and switching will not be as quick but it is easier to find approximately a section to repeat.). The other alternative is to create an entirely duplicate source system and then sync the start so one source lags a predetermined amount of time behind. This then requires rigorous adherence to a "switch schedule" (e.g. every three minutes) which in turn pretty much wipes out user control. In my own personal testing, I do continuous listening, quick-switching when and as desired. Then when I have "zeroed in" on what I believe is a difference, I try to alternate back and forth on a shorter segment using as quick a switch as is possible. I believe most people follow a similar approach. It's usually done sighted; it can be done blind if you have a willing and knowledgeable assistant to help. |
|
#519
|
|||
|
|||
|
Buster Mudd wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: Buster Mudd wrote: And by "the kind of information that has to do with the longer-term kind of memory" are you (once again) talking about Musical Content? Because if so, that's *NOT* the "kind of information" that would allow one to discern a perceptual equivalence between an SACD player and a CD player...or between an SACD recording and a CD recording, for that matter. p.s. If a certain musical content can be heard through one piece of gear but not another, surely that *is* a difference that is relevant to audio, no? (What I have in mind here is, say, how clearly an inner voice can be heard, and I think LP and CD do sometimes differ in that respect.) If an inner voice can be heard clearly via one source and is obscured or masked via another, that sort of difference would be audible fairly immediately, without resorting to "longer-term kind of memory". Yes, I agree, but one thing at a time. It *is* a kind of information that can be relevant to a difference between SACD and CD, which runs counter to what you said above. And I don't see what ensures that *all* information that depends on longer-term memory will be discernible immediately; the fact that information about musical content depends on longer-term memory doesn't imply that everything that depends on longer-term memory is about musical content. Mark |
|
#520
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote:
In article , chung wrote: Jenn wrote: Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: What matters, or might well matter to some, is whether the information derived from one source, or its perceptual effect, is the same as that from another source (in blind musical listening). Why should we assume that this reduces to a matter of detecting differences? Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener. It's really that simple. Actually to be more fully correct, if a difference is not detected by the listener under the given test conditions, then they must sound the same under those conditions. Actually, the qualification you added does not make my statement any "more truly correct". What you were trying to say is that there might be some test conditions where the listener could detect differences. If that is the case, then the listener simply can detect differences under those test conditions, and of course the two will therefore not sound the same to that listener under those test conditions. Rather obvious, is it not? Obvious, yes, but left out of your paragraph. Your paragraph would seem to indicate that if a listener hears no differences under a specific set of conditions, then the listener will hear no differences under any conditions. This, of course, is not a given. I would then suggest that you are not reading carefully and are drawing erroneous inferences. Untrue. Your statement suggests that if a listener doesn't hear a difference in a test, that for that listener, there is no difference. That thought doesn't at all take into account, for example, test validity or testing conditions. Well, Jenn, try to read carefully now. snip Uncalled for sarcasm noted, and unappreciated. What you should have noted instead is the exasperation expressed in that sentence. You should have read what I wrote that didn't get approved for posting! Thanks but no thanks. What's the point? Exasperation that a simple sentence can be so misread due to a perception bias, despite my subsequent attempts to explain. I guess that we just have to, yet again, agree to disagree. You know, it is not an opinion, like whether CD vs vinyl sounds more real, that we are disagreeing. You are simply not understanding what a simple sentence like: "Because if a difference is not detected by the listener, then the two sources *must* sound the same to the listener." mean, and drawing the wrong conclusions, and then insisting that you are right. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
| Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
