Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective Testing?
Has anybody read "The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio
Equipment Quality" By Robert Harley? He apparently presented this at the AES in May. http://tinyurl.com/6ensud I'd certainly like to hear comments from Arny Kruger and some of the other "objectivists" regulars on this forum. To me it reads like "We've got to protect our Phoney-Baloney jobs, Gentlemen!" and is very self serving. But he does make a few good points. His main thrust, which he keeps going back to, seems to center upon the notion that double-blind and ABX tests are fundamentally flawed because the listeners are concentrating on hearing differences rather than listening to the music. He calls this "focal" vs "subsidiary" awareness and uses hitting a nail with a hammer as an example. When you hit a nail you are watching the nail, not what your hand which is holding the hammer is doing. The nail is your "focal" awareness point and the hand is your "subsidiary" awareness point. You are, at some level, aware of what your hand is doing, after all, it is guiding the hammer. But you are concentrating on the nail and if you let your concentration wander off of the nail and onto what your hand is doing and feeling, you will miss the nail with your blows. He says that if you are concentrating on the music as you would be in an extended subjective listening session, your "focal" awareness is on the music allowing your "subsidiary" awareness to pick out differences and anomalies in the presentation. But if you shift your "focal" awareness to hearing differences between test components in an ABX or double-blind tests, then your "subsidiary" awareness becomes the part of the brain listening to the music and this will actually lessen the listener's ability to hear any differences between components. I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like for these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my capsule summation, above. Thanks. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective Testing?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
Has anybody read "The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality" By Robert Harley? He apparently presented this at the AES in May. I guess this article dates back to 1991, and is also known as "The Listener's Manifesto". In this latter form it was published in Stereophile in 1992. I gave it a once-over in 1999, after it was posted on the Stereophile web site: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...812398b0e39c50 The Stereophile Listener's Manifesto article seems to be very similar to this revised version of the paper that Harley is currently publicizing, namely: http://tinyurl.com/6ensud I notice that the "Listener's Manifesto" is no longer posted on the Stereophile web site: http://www.stereophile.com/features/20/ The article was pulled off the SP web site, not that long after Harley left Stereophile. I'd certainly like to hear comments from Arny Kruger and some of the other "objectivists" regulars on this forum. I don't think a lot has changed since 1999. To me it reads like "We've got to protect our Phony-Baloney jobs, Gentlemen!" and is very self serving. Not to mention rather grotesquely misrepresenting the viewpoints of people he does not agree with. But he does make a few good points. His main thrust, which he keeps going back to, seems to center upon the notion that double-blind and ABX tests are fundamentally flawed because the listeners are concentrating on hearing differences rather than listening to the music. That's a well-known straw man argument. He calls this "focal" vs. "subsidiary" awareness and uses hitting a nail with a hammer as an example. When you hit a nail you are watching the nail, not what your hand which is holding the hammer is doing. The nail is your "focal" awareness point and the hand is your "subsidiary" awareness point. You are, at some level, aware of what your hand is doing, after all, it is guiding the hammer. But you are concentrating on the nail and if you let your concentration wander off of the nail and onto what your hand is doing and feeling, you will miss the nail with your blows. Pound enough nails and you stop thinking about pounding nails in such a conscious, detailed sort of way. From time to time I do a construction project like that. While nailing, every once in a while I sort of snap out of the nail pounding thing and notice that my apron has no nails left in it, and that it is time to go get some more. He says that if you are concentrating on the music as you would be in an extended subjective listening session, your "focal" awareness is on the music allowing your "subsidiary" awareness to pick out differences and anomalies in the presentation. But if you shift your "focal" awareness to hearing differences between test components in an ABX or double-blind tests, then your "subsidiary" awareness becomes the part of the brain listening to the music and this will actually lessen the listener's ability to hear any differences between components. Do enough ABX listening tests and you stop thinking about listening in such a conscious, detailed sort of way. You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective Testing?
He sets up a strawman argument by drawing the objective and subjective in
a cartoon fashion. He does much hand waving and special pleading. He assumes abilities of subjectiv approaches to have been established as not existing in the brain alone and claimed effects to exist before the ears. Double blind tests can be done conforming to his ownlistening session preferences. This addresses the false oppisition he posed in the part you posted. Too much science of the phycology of listening and other cognitive experiences has gone under the bridge since the original 1991 publication of his notions for most of them to be given serious consideration. At the same time and in the same period no subjective claims ever left the drawing board for confirmation outside those asserting them. I read a recent interview in sterophile with a speaker maker. They do double blind testing with trained lisenters who listen exactly as he proposes. There preferences follow closely a set of parameters of speaker performance and they can identify with great accuracy those which fall in and out of those parameters. Let him do the same with amps and cd players and other such gear and then he can come back nd tell us the results. To support his claims they would show exactly that his prefferences mirror the same gear if he knows what is in the system and when he doesn't know. Tests have been done where two bits of gear were before listeners and were said to be swiched and preferences sought. In fact no switch was made but preferencs switched accordingly. All he proposes must account for those tests. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Arny Krueger wrote:
You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective Testing?
Sonnova wrote:
Has anybody read "The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality" By Robert Harley? He apparently presented this at the AES in May. No, he presented it at AES in 1991. It was apparently less than revolutionary. He's just expanded republished it as part of a book, in May 2008. It's much the same baselessly asserted junk it was in 1991. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Sonnova wrote:
Has anybody read "The Role of Critical Listening in Evaluating Audio Equipment Quality" By Robert Harley? He apparently presented this at the AES in May. http://tinyurl.com/6ensud I'd certainly like to hear comments from Arny Kruger and some of the other "objectivists" regulars on this forum. To me it reads like "We've got to protect our Phoney-Baloney jobs, Gentlemen!" and is very self serving. But he does make a few good points. There are extremists on both sides of this issue, thus insuring no end to what Harley calls "The Great Debate." In my view, it is not a "Great Debate." For many who cling to neither extreme, it is a dull, worn, tired exchange. Most audiophiles have long since made up their minds on the matter. They can enjoy their music and systems without the anguish that seems to plague those on opposing sides of the debate. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
C. Leeds wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. That's a convenient story that some audiophiles tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests. Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs, using software ABX -- they'd be less anxiety-producing? (Personally i've found them fun and interesting) One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology, on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross error, which is why it's never used when reliable answers are needed in studies involving audio discrimination. If subjectivists actually realized the truth of that, imagine their anxiety! -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Arny wrote:
You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. I answered: This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. Steven Sullivan answers: That's a convenient story that some audiophiles tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests. Test anxiety is a well known phenomenon. It's not confined to audiophiles or abx testing. Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs, using software ABX -- they'd be less anxiety-producing? I never said that I suffered from test anxiety. I've conducted a number of double blind tests, of which abx is just one type. (Personally i've found them fun and interesting) It's a matter of preference. I find such testing duller than dirt. One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology, on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross error... Sighted methodology is also subject to error, and that's part of the problem. There is no one simple definitive testing methodology. Extremists on both sides of the "Great Debate" will dispute this, of course. For them, this has much more to do with religion than it does with science. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:56:11 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): C. Leeds wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. That's a convenient story that some audiophiles tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests. Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs, using software ABX -- they'd be less anxiety-producing? (Personally i've found them fun and interesting) One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology, on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross error, which is why it's never used when reliable answers are needed in studies involving audio discrimination. If subjectivists actually realized the truth of that, imagine their anxiety! Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations of what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can be correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true. With audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some way alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the same using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term listening paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to find all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind tests are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those who constructed the test have no control. Neither of these two opinions is, in any way measurable for validity. This is not a "Great Debate", it's not even a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations
of what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can be correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true. With audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some way alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the same using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term listening paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to find all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind tests are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those who constructed the test have no control. Neither of these two opinions is, in any way measurable for validity. This is not a "Great Debate", it's not even a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that." No, which is why I say double blind testing is by listening alone. The long term listener using a double blind test is obligated to show he too can distinguish between amps beyond levels of chance using listening alone, but without benefit of knowing which is which. If his ability to distinguish toggles on and off with knowing or not, then we know the source and the question is resolved. Those in the subjective camp want dearly for an impasse so they might then return to "I heare it, I really do, don't you believe me?". I gave an example of a speaker maker who uses double blind with trained lisenters. They can by listening alone provide valid results showing that if a given speaker falls outside a set of measurable parameters they have found make for "good sound", they can easily spot it. This is done on the basis of which speaker they prefer for its sound not by comparing it to another. There is no impasse, the tests have been done even using a test as simple as putting a cloth over connections so the bit of gear active is not known. If the subjective folk want to once again regain credibility then they must do their own tests even if it means inventing one they consider free of so called "flaws". They do not/have not and we are left once again with "doin't you belive me?". |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote:
I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my capsule summation, above. Thanks. After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage ), I find the article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in terms that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to be entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. And, sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is about as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial tit on the proverbial bull. Explanation: ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences between any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX testing, it surely exists. What it does not do is cover the very-long-term effects of one item over another. That takes *at least* many hours, often many days to discern - and is damned near impossible to effect in any entirely objective manner. Often these effects are described by a generic "listener fatigue" - a damned term for its vagueness and limitations, but altogether an accurate description of the net result. So, ABX to separate the obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - and a long-term sighted test to decide whether the results of ABX are actually accurate for *that* item in *your* listening environment. Equipment reviewers are like movie reviewers - some parallel the reader's tastes better than others. Those reviewers tend to be respected by *their* parallel readers. All the rest are noise in the background and have NOTHING to offer to those who do not share their tastes. Simple as that, as, writing for myself, no one else on this planet has my ears or my tastes or my concerns such that they are able to listen for me and be certain of the results. Equipment reviewers are also exactly as members of the oldest profession as they are paid for their opinions of those items the manufacturers of which provide that pay. Do you really think they are going to bite the hand that feeds them in any material way? Consider what they do, how they do it and so forth... this is not exactly Consumer Reports that actually purchases what they test on the open market... not even a teeny, tiny, eentsy, weentsy little bit. What it comes down to, guys and gals, is purchase, operate and maintain what YOU like. And the devil take the hindermost with the rest of the world. If a reviewer happens to align with your peculiar tastes, that is all well and good - but DO retain your independence of judgement, thought and discernment, please. Let the pundits and profits on either side of the issue rot in their own self-created, self-serving, delusional idiocy - NONE of it should influence your decisions, ever. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
There are extremists on both sides of this issue, thus insuring no end
to what Harley calls "The Great Debate." In my view, it is not a "Great Debate." For many who cling to neither extreme, it is a dull, worn, tired exchange. Most audiophiles have long since made up their minds on the matter. They can enjoy their music and systems without the anguish that seems to plague those on opposing sides of the debate. Of course science is the way one bypasses such individual perturbations of opinion, of radical views, and of individual belief systems underlying "making up ones mind".. There is no need of debate because the science has been done. This leaves one free of anguish knowing that wire is wire and amps and cd players etc. within limits are today commodity items. One can with complete freedom of mind ignore the marketing departments and fellow travelr hifi mags who thrive on selling anguish that the next greatest and more expensive item will do it for you. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
I can identify a pleasing sound in seconds and in only a few seconds
more pick out the flaws in a hi fi sound, that's all that matters . Side by side evaluations of equipment often reveal huge differences missed by the "recollection' route. That's all ye need know. SD |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote: I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my capsule summation, above. Thanks. After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage ), I find the article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in terms that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to be entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. And, sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is about as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial tit on the proverbial bull. Explanation: ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences between any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX testing, it surely exists. Actaully, ABX (DBT) is very useful in discerning quite subtle differences, particularly when discrimination training is employed. So the rest of your argument falls apart. Your 'long term listening' method requires the same validation against sighted error, as short term: a blinding step. Take as long as you like to make sure you can hear those differences: then prove it with a blind control. Simple, no? -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
C. Leeds wrote:
Arny wrote: You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. I answered: This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. Steven Sullivan answers: That's a convenient story that some audiophiles tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests. Test anxiety is a well known phenomenon. It's not confined to audiophiles or abx testing. And yet hundreds if not thousands of findings have been made in experimental psychology over the years, while employing tests of various sorts. Strangely, the science is not considered invalid, nor is the methodology. Really, you'll have to do better than that. The existence of test anxiety doesn't invalidate ABX testing. Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs, using software ABX -- they'd be less anxiety-producing? I never said that I suffered from test anxiety. I've conducted a number of double blind tests, of which abx is just one type. (Personally i've found them fun and interesting) It's a matter of preference. I find such testing duller than dirt. Well, at least you're not 'anxious'. One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology, on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross error... Sighted methodology is also subject to error, and that's part of the problem. That's a bit of an understatement. Sighted methodology is VASTLY more subject to error, than a well-controlled methodology. NO competent scientists studying audible difference would ever emply sighted methodology. There is no one simple definitive testing methodology. But there is definitely one method NOT to use. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. Performance anxiety is very common. Anxiety management is part of life. There is a fairly reliable solution to performance anxiety, and that is to simply to get a lot of good experience with whatever it is that is causing you anxiety. I don't see people running around knocking playing sports where scores are kept because some people get overly anxious about losing. Personally, I find that sighted evaluations cause me a great deal of anxiety. For one thing, I'm anxious about having my biases affect the outcome of the evaluation. I'm also anxious about basing the outcome of the evaluation on what amounts to being just one trial. Some of the people I've seen who were the most anxious about ABX testing are people who have made claims that are known to be impossible, but can basically only adjucated based on a blind test. For example I know of several journalists who have made well-documented public claims about hearing things that psychoacoustics says just can't be heard. Things like hearing a 0.01 dB volume difference. Of course they are anxious - they've promised the stars! |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 13, 12:14*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote: On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote: I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my capsule summation, above. Thanks. After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage ( *http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage*), I find *the article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in *terms that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to *be entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. *And, sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is *about as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial *tit on the proverbial bull. Explanation: ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences *between any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX *testing, it surely exists. Actaully, ABX (DBT) is very useful in discerning quite subtle differences, particularly when discrimination training is employed. So the rest of your argument falls apart. With respect, not hardly. What I am "arguing" is that one should purchase and maintain what one chooses and enjoys. Tests notwithstanding, opinion (of others) notwithstanding, cost notwithstanding, smoke-and-mirrors notwithstanding. One should arrive at the choice by whatever means one chooses - same "notwithstandings" as above. The end. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 13, 12:14*am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote: I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my capsule summation, above. Thanks. After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage ( *http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage*), I find *the article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in *terms that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to *be entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. *And, sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is *about as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial *tit on the proverbial bull. Explanation: ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences *between any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX *testing, it surely exists. Actaully, ABX (DBT) is very useful in discerning quite subtle differences, particularly when discrimination training is employed. So the rest of your argument falls apart. With respect, not hardly. What I am "arguing" is that one should purchase and maintain what one chooses and enjoys. No one argues with that. But you argued rather more than that. Tests notwithstanding, opinion (of others) notwithstanding, cost notwithstanding, smoke-and-mirrors notwithstanding. One should arrive at the choice by whatever means one chooses - same "notwithstandings" as above. The end. No, because what we're talking about isn't people buying stuff and enjoying it. We're talking about people making CLAIMS about what they can hear. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
There is no impasse, the tests have been done even using a test as simple
as putting a cloth over connections so the bit of gear active is not known. If the subjective folk want to once again regain credibility then they must do their own tests even if it means inventing one they consider free of so called "flaws". They do not/have not and we are left once again with "doin't you belive me?". But, like I said. They are BOTH subjective because no measurements are involved. In both case, the results are one does or doesn't hear. The tests are to exclude the possibility that what is claimed to be heard doesn't appear in the signal before the ears. That our ear/brain perception process is not hooked up to a meter as the test is done is irrelevant. It is a claim about human experience, so we test for the reality of that reported experience by looking to see if something as a source is in the signal chain. Using the word "subjective" in any sense neither adds nor detracts from the tests. The measure is not meter movement but numbers of correct as compared to chance reports of the clamed factor existing before the ear in the signal train by putting it in and removing it from the signal train. If when the proported source of the factor in the chain does not conform to it being there or not beyond chance, the claim has been excluded. As above, if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show the factor is source dependant and does exist before the ears in the signal chain and not after the ears as a process of the ear/brain perception function.. They must show that inserting and removing the proported source makes a difference absent knowing the active source. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show
the factor ... No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here and "be heard." When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not freedom to post one's opinion. Opinion is however quite different then that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual. That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer questions. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 15, 5:23*pm, wrote:
...if the subjective folk want to be heard they must test to show the factor ... No, "subjective folk" need not do anything at all to participate here and "be heard." When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual. * That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer questions. With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. Opinion expressed- as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force. When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs. I make my choices in audio on several often conflicting levels, including pure whim, challenge and sometimes shear cussidness. I am about to rebuild a first-issue Dynaco Stereo 120 - the "glass-in-a- blender" version. Why? Not as if I need another power-amp, but for the simple pleasure of taking a Trabant and making it into an almost-VW, for an automotive analogy. And I run a bunch of tube stuff - not exactly the best 'measuring' equipment out there. But I like it, how it sounds and even (Oh, the SHAME of it!!) how it looks... So, please get off dividing into armed and hostile camps - this is emphatically NOT revealed religion. Nobody's "credibility" is at issue - except to the extent that they fault others based on said revealed religion. And then it is gone entirely. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:44:36 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ): Arny wrote: You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. I answered: This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. Steven Sullivan answers: That's a convenient story that some audiophiles tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests. Test anxiety is a well known phenomenon. It's not confined to audiophiles or abx testing. Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs, using software ABX -- they'd be less anxiety-producing? I never said that I suffered from test anxiety. I've conducted a number of double blind tests, of which abx is just one type. (Personally i've found them fun and interesting) It's a matter of preference. I find such testing duller than dirt. One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology, on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross error... Sighted methodology is also subject to error, and that's part of the problem. There is no one simple definitive testing methodology. Extremists on both sides of the "Great Debate" will dispute this, of course. For them, this has much more to do with religion than it does with science. Since this "debate" is irreconcilable, it comes down PRECISELY to religion and for the same reason. It is a belief in things that cannot be quantified or verified by any known methodology in any way which would satisfy both sides of the question, so each side has to base their particular belief on the assumption that they are right. Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in the same way. The ear, after all, is merely a mechanism, a transducer in fact. The thing behind the ear, the brain, interprets the signals it hears as sound and we don't know to what extent those interpretations are similar from one person to another - even if we could be sure that the mechanics of the ear operate the same in all perfectly functioning ears, and we can't even tell that except for simple frequency domain sensitivity tests. IOW, at the moment, there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in this because we don't know enough about the variables in the human perception of music. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:26:17 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote: I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my capsule summation, above. Thanks. After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage ), I find the article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in terms that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to be entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. And, sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is about as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial tit on the proverbial bull. Explanation: ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences between any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX testing, it surely exists. What it does not do is cover the very-long-term effects of one item over another. That takes *at least* many hours, often many days to discern - and is damned near impossible to effect in any entirely objective manner. Often these effects are described by a generic "listener fatigue" - a damned term for its vagueness and limitations, but altogether an accurate description of the net result. So, ABX to separate the obvious wheat from the obvious chaff - and a long-term sighted test to decide whether the results of ABX are actually accurate for *that* item in *your* listening environment. Equipment reviewers are like movie reviewers - some parallel the reader's tastes better than others. Those reviewers tend to be respected by *their* parallel readers. All the rest are noise in the background and have NOTHING to offer to those who do not share their tastes. Simple as that, as, writing for myself, no one else on this planet has my ears or my tastes or my concerns such that they are able to listen for me and be certain of the results. Equipment reviewers are also exactly as members of the oldest profession as they are paid for their opinions of those items the manufacturers of which provide that pay. Do you really think they are going to bite the hand that feeds them in any material way? Consider what they do, how they do it and so forth... this is not exactly Consumer Reports that actually purchases what they test on the open market... not even a teeny, tiny, eentsy, weentsy little bit. What it comes down to, guys and gals, is purchase, operate and maintain what YOU like. And the devil take the hindermost with the rest of the world. If a reviewer happens to align with your peculiar tastes, that is all well and good - but DO retain your independence of judgement, thought and discernment, please. Let the pundits and profits on either side of the issue rot in their own self-created, self-serving, delusional idiocy - NONE of it should influence your decisions, ever. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Very well reasoned, and for my money, pretty spot-on. Equipment reviews, like any other review, is to INTRODUCE the reader to a component, not to convince him/her to buy it. If one id familiar with a certain reviewer's body of work, then the review becomes useful on another level. One can say that (for instance) "Tony Cordesman and I generally agree on what sounds good and I know this because I have been reading Tony for many years. If he says that this piece of equipment is very good, I should perhaps make an effort to hear it for myself." Of course the opposite is also true. "John Atkinson and I NEVER agree. He HATED this pre-amp, that means I'll probably like it. I must make an effort to audition it." Beyond that, one should probably take most reviews with a grain of salt. Enjoy them for entertainment and to introduce you to equipment that you may be unfamiliar with, and finally to perhaps peak your interest, but no more. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:36:38 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "C. Leeds" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. Performance anxiety is very common. Anxiety management is part of life. There is a fairly reliable solution to performance anxiety, and that is to simply to get a lot of good experience with whatever it is that is causing you anxiety. Good point. I don't see people running around knocking playing sports where scores are kept because some people get overly anxious about losing. Personally, I find that sighted evaluations cause me a great deal of anxiety. For one thing, I'm anxious about having my biases affect the outcome of the evaluation. I'm also anxious about basing the outcome of the evaluation on what amounts to being just one trial. Some of the people I've seen who were the most anxious about ABX testing are people who have made claims that are known to be impossible, but can basically only adjucated based on a blind test. For example I know of several journalists who have made well-documented public claims about hearing things that psychoacoustics says just can't be heard. Things like hearing a 0.01 dB volume difference. Of course they are anxious - they've promised the stars! That's one of the problems with high-end audio as a hobby, isn't it? People have been so turned-off by some of the claims of many of these high-end audio personalities, that the whole field has been tainted by some kind of voodoo prejudice. Examples: Painting the edges of one's CDs with a green pen Putting bricks on top of components makes them "sound better" Specially treated digital "clocks" lower the noise floor of audio components when plugged in to the same mains outlet. Myrtlewood blocks placed on components make them sound better Lifting speaker cables off the floor using special ceramic "cable stands" (or inverted coffee cups) makes the speakers sound better setting up expensive wooden frames containing turned wooden rods (which look like something out of a fat reducing machine) all over the room improves imaging. "Demagnitizing" CDs and vinyl records make both sound better. Suspending the connection from one's tone-arm to one's pre-amp using nylon monofilament line so that the cable never touches a surface improves the sound. These are just a few of what must be literally hundreds of such fanciful notions that so many audiophiles have taken to heart as to support a lucrative business for those who are willing to cater to these preposterous propositions with (not inexpensive) hardware. No doubt that the likes of Enid Lumley has made many a latter-day snake-oil salesman rich. And I didn't even mention cables and interconnects - once. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
When not taken out of context being "heard" is about credability and not
freedom to post one's opinion. *Opinion is however quite different then that which can be demonstrated independent of any single individual. That is the entire basis for a scientific way to pose and answer questions. " With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. Opinion expressed- as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force. When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs. When someone expresses the view that his latest wire choice "throws a broader soundstage" and at the price of $3000 per foot then we have gone beyond "choice" and "opion" and "enjoyment" and into the realm of an asserted objective reality. We then want to know if that reported perception is in the wire or in his head as a function of the ear/brain process. Now we have science which allows us to move beyond the "I hear it, I really do, don't you believe me?" state of affairs. If that wire has some physical factor then we want to know it independent of the individual reporting his perception.. Don't you want to know that too and isn't part of this hobby knowing what is really happening so assertions can be put aside and we can enjoy the experience knowing $3000 wire adds nothing to the experience? This group does not exclude those whose enjoyment is in knowing such things and discussiong of how they can be achieved. The group does not exclude educating ourselves about how to wade in and survive the marketing depts. and fellow traveler hifi mags. in the sale of questionable expectations and offering to reduce the "audio nervosa" they have produced by following their advice and buyiing their products. Do we want to "discuss" endlessly the virtues of that $3000 wire against a mere $1500 wire and what double the price buys in listening experience? The obvious first question would seem to be "is wire wire?" which makes the above discussion premature and moot if it is. As the above objective areas are not excluded, I have no problem having that $3000 vs. $1500 wire discussion but understanding that questiones might reasonably be posed as to the psych/physical principles involved. That goes both ways. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"I can identify a pleasing sound in seconds and in only a few seconds
more pick out the flaws in a hi fi sound, that's all that matters . Side by side evaluations of equipment often reveal huge differences missed by the "recollection' route. That's all ye need know. SD" Ok, and if side by side listening alone fails to be able to pick out either, pleasing or not? That is the present situation. Remove knowing which side by side item is active and "identify" and "pick" fall to levels of chance alone. That, by listening alone, is what the tests show; many many times now. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 12, 6:40*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:56:11 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): C. Leeds wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. That's a convenient story that some audiophiles tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests. Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs, using software ABX *-- they'd be less anxiety-producing? *(Personally i've found them fun and interesting) One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology, on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross error, which is why it's never used when reliable answers are needed in studies involving audio discrimination. *If subjectivists actually realized the truth of that, imagine their anxiety! Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations of what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can be correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true. With audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some way alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the same using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term listening paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to find all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind tests are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those who constructed the test have no control. *Neither of these two opinions is, in any way measurable for validity. *This is not a "Great Debate", it's not even a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that. There are a number of problems here. First and most importantly, we *can* measure "what people hear." It's just air compression, after all. We can't measure what they think in response to what they hear, but we can demonstrate that what they think is often completely independent of what they hear. And what they hear, as determined by objective listening tests, correlates very closely with measurements of electrical signals. The long-term listening myth has been debunked here previously. The reason this isn't a "debate" is that it is all settled science--in the sense that all of these questions have been explored at sufficient depth that there exists a scientific consensus on them. There aren't any unexplained phenomena out there that would cause that consensus to unravel. People like Harley can't point to any such phenomena. All they can do is deny what everybody else has determined to be true. Scientists don't *debate* Denialists; they debunk them. bob |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"C. Leeds" wrote in message
Pardon me, but this is not a strictly scientific newsgroup and contributors here are permitted to express their opinions. If you want to change that, you can work to change the group's charter - but the matter is not for you to decide alone. Hmm, what is the meaning of "permitted to express their opinons"? I think it means that the moderators won't bounce the post because it is OT. I see plenty of latitude for that on RAHE. I also see some confusion between "permitted to express their opinons" and "express opinions without controversy". If someone posts an opinion and someone else deconstructs it on the grounds that it represents a scientific impossibility, that would be just fine, right? I see no promise that any On Topic opinion will be posted and all controversy related to it will supressed or filtered, and somehow that is fine with me. ;-) |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 16, 8:05*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Since this "debate" is irreconcilable, it comes down PRECISELY to religion and for the same reason. It is a belief in things that cannot be quantified or verified by any known methodology in any way which would satisfy both sides of the question, so each side has to base their particular belief on the assumption that they are right. This is simply wrong. All of these things can be quantified, and what happens in Audioland is a pseudo-debate between people who are willing to quantify them and people who are not. There is no methodology that would satisfy both geologists and flat-earthers, but that doesn't mean their "disagreement" is a religious one. Researchers aren't even sure that two human beings hear the same thing in the same way. I suggest you study some of the research on the subject before you venture here. Peoples' brains do indeed react to sound in the same way; it's their interpretation of those sounds that differs--and that's a multi-stage process. In a sense, one of the things that objective listening tests does is to help determine whether it is the sound itself, or the interpretation of the sound, that differs. The ear, after all, is merely a mechanism, a transducer in fact. The thing behind the ear, the brain, interprets the signals it hears as sound and we don't know to what extent those interpretations are similar from one person to another - even if we could be sure that the mechanics of the ear operate the same in all perfectly functioning ears, and we can't even tell that except for simple frequency domain sensitivity tests. IOW, at the moment, there's no way to know who's right and who's wrong in this because we don't know enough about the variables in the human perception of music. "Perception of music" is part of the interpretation stage, not the hearing stage. (There is no such physical reality as music; a sound is musical only because you interpret it as such.) And the science is way ahead of you on this stuff. bob |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:51:40 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ): On Jul 12, 6:40*pm, Sonnova wrote: On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:56:11 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote (in article ): C. Leeds wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: You've got to realize that for some people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety. This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild, distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology. That's a convenient story that some audiophiles tell themselves - the ones who are afraid of ABX tests. Perhaps if you peformed some on your own, without a chance of embarrassment -- say, telling mp3s from .wavs, using software ABX *-- they'd be less anxiety-producing? *(Personally i've found them fun and interesting) One thing science does tell us is that *sighted* methodology, on the other hand, is about a constant lurking possibility of gross error, which is why it's never used when reliable answers are needed in studies involving audio discrimination. *If subjectivists actually realized the truth of that, imagine their anxiety! Were it so simple. The problem with double-blind vs "sighted" evaluations of what people hear is that BOTH are equally subjective. In most scientific endeavors, evaluations of performance, whether sighted or double-blind can be correlated with measurements and the correlations generally hold true. With audio, we cannot measure what people are actually hearing and no listening test occurs in a vacuum. There is always the possibility that interaction with ancillary equipment - required to perform the tests, might in some way alter the results. If two amplifiers, for instance, measure exactly the same using the tools available to us today and a subsequent double-blind test shows that these two amps sound identical, then that should be that and to many audiophiles, this is the case. The subjective test results tally with the measured test results. But an evaluator who uses the long-term listening paradigm might find that he hears differences between these same two amps that did not show-up in the double-blind test and his answer is that the measurement procedures used today are simply not sophisticated enough to find all of the anomalies that he is hearing, and further, that double-blind tests are flawed due to personal as well as physical variables over which those who constructed the test have no control. *Neither of these two opinions is, in any way measurable for validity. *This is not a "Great Debate", it's not even a debate period. It's an impasse and a pretty insurmountable one at that. There are a number of problems here. First and most importantly, we *can* measure "what people hear." It's just air compression, after all. No we can't. You just said it yourself. We can measure the air compression (and subsequent rarefaction), yes, but what we can't measure is how the human brain interprets those mechanical changes in air pressure. We might pick-up those variations in air pressure with our ears, but we "hear" them with our brains, and that, we cannot measure. Also, I'd like for you to show me a measuring device that can pick-up those variations of air pressure that we call sound and then interpret them in such a way as to tell us something about what they mean. IOW, can we measure the sound in a listening room in such a way as to tell whether or not, say, speaker cables make any difference in the way the speakers themselves perform? Without starting another argument about whether or not speaker cables can, in any real way, affect the sound of speakers, I'd say the answer is no. So, in any but the broadest terms, the answer is that we cannot measure what people hear, or even what they think they hear. We can't measure what they think in response to what they hear, but we can demonstrate that what they think is often completely independent of what they hear. Yes. Nut what they hear is determined by a combination of the mechanical acuity of their hearing apparatus (the physical ear) in conjunction with their brain. And what they hear, as determined by objective listening tests, correlates very closely with measurements of electrical signals. The long-term listening myth has been debunked here previously. Debunked but not proved. The reason this isn't a "debate" is that it is all settled science--in the sense that all of these questions have been explored at sufficient depth that there exists a scientific consensus on them. There aren't any unexplained phenomena out there that would cause that consensus to unravel. I'll agree, but I'm sure that others don't. People like Harley can't point to any such phenomena. All they can do is deny what everybody else has determined to be true. It certainly seems that way. But then his position is to save the credibility of his job. Scientists don't *debate* Denialists; they debunk them. Agreed. That's the reason why I said that this is not a debate. Certainly, on one side, its more like a religion. But I know a number of objectivists who are pretty non-dispassionate about their beliefs (even though those beliefs are backed by good science) as well. There is "religion" on both sides of this issue. bob |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
With all due respect, this group is not about "Science", or the "Scientific Method" - but about enjoyment of the hobby by whatever means fair or foul... as seen by others, that is. Opinion expressed- as-fact is as anathema as fact expressed-as-force. The idea that facts destroy enjoyment and hobbies is completely false. Many hobbies are strongly based on reliable facts, such as golf scores, lap times, bowling games, etc. Audio has always been inherently a technological hobby. There have always been attempts to measure the enjoyment-producing qualities of audio equipment. I have found it interesting to review the literature of consumer and professional audio, which goes back to the late 1920s and early 1930s. I started tracking audio in real time as it were in the middle 1950s. There have been a steady and ongoing stream of attempts to quantify the enjoyment-producing capabilities of audio systems. When those individuals who are so wedded to their perception of "the facts" as to preclude the ability to respect the choices of others start driveling on about said "facts" - then there are no grounds or means for discussion, opinion or free choice. That is a very sad state of affairs. The idea that facts destroy the means for discussion is a truly remarkable and fanciful thought that is widely contradicted by the facts of life. Do baseball statistics destroy the ability to have favorite baseball players? Reality is the exact opposite, most discussions of the capabilities of various players are dominated by recitations of relevant facts or figures. There's a very common reason why someone doesn't want to talk about the relevant statistics for their favorite player, and that is when the player's statistics really suck. I make my choices in audio on several often conflicting levels, including pure whim, challenge and sometimes sheer cussidness. That's a personal choice that anybody who wants to can make. In Detroit I can go to a car dealership and see brand new cars or I can go to the Henry Ford Museum and see a lot of very old ones. We have an annual large scale celebration of cars called the Woodward Dream cruise. I love it. Most of the vehicles one sees there are most definitely not new, or current, or even in daily use. I am about to rebuild a first-issue Dynaco Stereo 120 - the "glass-in-a- blender" version. Why? Not as if I need another power-amp, but for the simple pleasure of taking a Trabant and making it into an almost-VW, for an automotive analogy. And I run a bunch of tube stuff - not exactly the best 'measuring' equipment out there. But I like it, how it sounds and even (Oh, the SHAME of it!!) how it looks... Again, that's a personal choice that people get to make. I happen to have a modest amount of legacy gear, such as perfectly stock and original Dyna 120 and a CDP 101 that meet original spec, a Pioneer TX-9100 tuner, a PAT-5 and a CJ 2 preamp, etc. However, it is what it is, and that doesn't bother me a bit. I just don't insult people's intelligence by claiming any special capabilities along the lines of sonic accuracy. Actually, the 120 and the 101 sound just fine despite their frequent libeling by ignorant audiophiles. So, please get off dividing into armed and hostile camps - this is emphatically NOT revealed religion. I'm not sure where this religious belief issue comes from, if not the people who can't tell the difference between the proper place for science and the proper place for religion and keep up mixing up the two. Nobody's "credibility" is at issue - except to the extent that they fault others based on said revealed religion. And then it is gone entirely. Science can be a kind of religion for some people, and religion can be a science for some people. But most people seem to have a pretty good grip on which is which and manage their influence in their lives appropriately and in accordance with their personal preferences. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
On Jul 17, 5:51*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
FYI: Most of us here have at least a passing familiarity with science. Maybe not: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke's Third Law Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody read Robert Harley's AES Paper on Blind vs Subjective
I wrote:
this is not a strictly scientific newsgroup and contributors here are permitted to express their opinions. Arny answers: Hmm, what is the meaning of "permitted to express their opinons"? Just what it says. If someone posts an opinion and someone else deconstructs it on the grounds that it represents a scientific impossibility, that would be just fine, right? Hasn't this group always permitted discussion based on both opinion and science? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Blind testing: the epistemology | High End Audio | |||
Blind Testing - Some Further Thoughts | Audio Opinions | |||
double-blind testing | High End Audio | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Equation for blind testing? | Audio Opinions |