[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that
since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he
calls "audiophile myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be
found supporting those propositions, while many of the rest of us
takes that lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do so). You can't
find evidence if you don't look for it.

I think you're being grossly unfair. It's a matter of record that
Arny did once believe what he calls "audiophile myths", but he wasn't
satisfied with that, so he did some experiments himself. To say that
his experiments weren't "serious science" because they weren't funded
or sanctioned by a research institute is mere prejudice. Surely it's
better to have more people doing science, not keep it confined to an
ivory tower.

It's not prejudice. It's how science works. I had exactly the
opposite experience. I was a hard nosed objectivist who scoffed at the
notion that a tube amp could sound better than a modern SS amp and
mocked audiophiles for thinking one could get better sound than
digital audio by "dragging a rock over a piece of plastic." Yep that
is what I would say. So I did some blind comparisons. Wow was I
wrong!

Right, so you're not absolutely opposed to the idea of non-scientists
doing experiments.

Neither Arny's nor my blind tests are anything other than anecdotal
evidence in the eyes of real science.

Think about how negative this sounds. You're implying that there is
never any point to anyone who is not an official scientist doing a
careful experiment. They might as well guess, because their results
won't be valid anyway. Care and diligence is a waste of time.

So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 1, 12:10=A0pm, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that
since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he
calls "audiophile myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be
found supporting those propositions, while many of the rest of us
takes that lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do so). You can't
find evidence if you don't look for it.

I think you're being grossly unfair. It's a matter of record that
Arny did once believe what he calls "audiophile myths", but he wasn't
satisfied with that, so he did some experiments himself. To say that
his experiments weren't "serious science" because they weren't funded
or sanctioned by a research institute is mere prejudice. Surely it's
better to have more people doing science, not keep it confined to an
ivory tower.

It's not prejudice. It's how science works. I had exactly the
opposite experience. I was a hard nosed objectivist who scoffed at the
notion that a tube amp could sound better than a modern SS amp and
mocked audiophiles for thinking one could get better sound than
digital audio by "dragging a rock over a piece of plastic." Yep that
is what I would say. So I did some blind comparisons. Wow was I
wrong!

Right, so you're not absolutely opposed to the idea of non-scientists
doing experiments.

Of course not. I am opposed to misrepresentations of their merit in
the eyes of real science. Whether that misrepresentation comes from
"creationist scientists" Bigfoot hunters, UFOlogists or rabid audio
objectivists. And yes you can throw in the radical audio subjectivists
like the Peter Beltians who advocate things like freezing pictures of
your dog and many other things that could not possibly affect the
performance of an audio system.



Neither Arny's nor my blind tests are anything other than anecdotal
evidence in the eyes of real science.

Think about how negative this sounds. =A0You're implying that there is
never any point to anyone who is not an official scientist doing a
careful experiment.

Not at all. Again it's not about people doing experiments it's about
misrepresenting real science. Weekend scientists don't get a special
pass that allows them to bypass the rigors of accepted scientific
methodologies. Do all the experiments you want just don't pretend it
is something the actual scientific community considers to be real
science.

=A0They might as well guess, because their results
won't be valid anyway. =A0Care and diligence is a waste of time.

Look validity means different things in different contexts. They are
as valid as one wants to think they are on a personal level. Just as
much as your opinions on your favorite flavor of ice cream is justa s
valid as you want it to be on a personal level. But scientific
validity is a different thing and demands very different standards.
It's the bait and switch that I take issue with.



So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. =A0What matters is how well the experiment is
done. =A0But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.


I agree with your agreement. ;-)

I am going to go out on a limb and guess you would perefer that people
don't peddle junk science and anecdotes as real science as well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Not at all. Again it's not about people doing experiments
it's about misrepresenting real science.

Who does that?

Weekend
scientists don't get a special pass that allows them to
bypass the rigors of accepted scientific methodologies.

Who does that?

Do all the experiments you want just don't pretend it is
something the actual scientific community considers to be
real science.

Remember that ABX and its procedures were fully described in a
peer-reviewed paper that was printed in the JAES.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 2, 1:35=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Not at all. Again it's not about people doing experiments
it's about misrepresenting real science.

Who does that?

Since you asked, I think you do.


Weekend
scientists don't get a special pass that allows them to
bypass the rigors of accepted scientific methodologies.

Who does that?

*does* what? I didn't say anybody *does* anything in the above quote.


Do all the experiments you want just don't pretend it is
something the actual scientific community considers to be
real science.

=A0Remember that ABX and its procedures were fully described in a
peer-reviewed paper that was printed in the JAES.

Yep. I have it. Remember when I asked for any peer reviewed papers
with results of such tests that show amplifiers sound the same? The
AESJ clearly shows that they would publish such papers should thet
stand up to scrutiny by having published the paper you are referencing
above which cites the need for such tests in audio.

[Harry Lavo]

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:

snip

So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Not necesarily. If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
(stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology, etc.)

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and even
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluative
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 1, 4:40=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message

...

Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
snip
So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. =A0What matters is how well the experiment is
done. =A0But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Not necesarily. =A0If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
(stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology, etc=
..)

If the controls "aren't there" then you have "none" by definition.



Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and e=
ven
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. =A0Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.


If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluativ=
e
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. =A0One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeav=
or is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.

How does ABX interfere in a way that ABC/hr does not? Neither
methodology is particularly more or less like the "normal evaluative
process" if there is such a singular thing. I can't go there with you
Harry. If done well ABX should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test
may miss an audible difference that is present and not specifically
being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT advocates that
when used to test claims of audibility those making the claims should
already know what specifically to listen for. ABX doen right does not
make audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the issue
not ABX per se.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


How does ABX interfere in a way that ABC/hr does not?

Good point Scott. But lets step back even further and see the big picture.

How does ABX interfere in a way that any test that demands the listener
express an opinon does not?

Neither methodology is particularly more or less like the
"normal evaluative process" if there is such a singular
thing.

Additional good points. Is an ABX test less intrusive than listening in a
stereo salon with a commissioned salesman hovering?

I can't go there with you Harry. If done well ABX
should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test may miss an
audible difference that is present and not specifically
being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT
advocates that when used to test claims of audibility
those making the claims should already know what
specifically to listen for. ABX donr right does not make
audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the
issue not ABX per se.

What makes this all a giant joke is the fact that so many people take
sighted, non-level-matched, non-time-synched listening evaluations as their
definitive standard for evaluating audio gear. If that isn't invalid, then
is anything invalid?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 2, 1:38=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



How does ABX interfere in a way =A0that ABC/hr does not?

Good point Scott. But lets step back even further and see the big picture=
..

How does ABX interfere in a way that any test that demands the listener
express an opinon does not?

I don't think it does. Nor does ABC/hr



Neither methodology is particularly more or less like the
"normal evaluative process" if there is such a singular
thing.

Additional good points. Is an ABX test less intrusive than listening in a
stereo salon with a commissioned salesman hovering?

I think the intrusiveness of ABX simply is a function of the physical
imposition of such a test. If we are talking an ABX box and amps this
is trivial. If we are talking about other things it can be cumbersome.
Try doing an ABX test of power conditioners for example. Not a simple
test to design or execute.


I can't go there with you Harry. If done well ABX
should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test may miss an
audible difference that is present and not specifically
being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT
advocates that when used to test claims of audibility
those making the claims should already know what
specifically to listen for. ABX donr right does not make
audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the
issue not ABX per se.

What makes this all a giant joke is the fact that so many people take
sighted, non-level-matched, non-time-synched listening evaluations as the=
ir
definitive standard for evaluating audio gear. =A0If that isn't invalid, =
then
is anything invalid?

Personal evaluation only requires personal validation. The last set of
blind comparisons I did (not ABX since theyr were preference
comparisons and there was NO question of sameness) was between several
*performances* of Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. It was an arduous
task to say the least. You really can't time sync, nor do you want to.
the pieces have to be heard in sections and as a whole. Level matching
is impossible so we level "optimized" for each version. As different
and as recognizable as one would expect the different interpretations
to be the blind comparisons were really an eye, or ear opener. A lot
of the presumptions about the artists' technical and artistic talents
were exposed as questionable in these blind comparisons. But it was a
lot of work. Luckily it was also a lot of fun. It was quite a learning
experience in regards to the concerto itself and a learning experience
in my personal tastes. One of the lessons was that despite the obvious
and, in many cases, recognizable differences between these
performances the bias controls made a significant impact on the
results and preferences formed.

[Harry Lavo]

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 4:40 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message

...

Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:

snip

So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Not necesarily. If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
(stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology,
etc.)

If the controls "aren't there" then you have "none" by definition.

No, then the controls are inadequate. There is a difference. Sometimes
"inadequate" controls can slip by the designer, as can validity-destroying
intervening variables. That's why careful peer review is important.


Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and
even
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.


If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal
evaluative
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor
is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.

How does ABX interfere in a way that ABC/hr does not? Neither
methodology is particularly more or less like the "normal evaluative
process" if there is such a singular thing. I can't go there with you
Harry. If done well ABX should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test
may miss an audible difference that is present and not specifically
being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT advocates that
when used to test claims of audibility those making the claims should
already know what specifically to listen for. ABX doen right does not
make audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the issue
not ABX per se.

I don't like either, although ABC/hr takes a timid step in the direction of
musical evaluation.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in
evaluating MUSIC differences that other approaches (the
aforementioned Oohashi test) and even the ABC/hr test
have proven better at.

You see to be very confused, Harry.

Of course the ABX test has been shown to be valid in evaluating differences
in sound quality related to the reproduction of music and voice.

The OOhashi test has never been confirmed and was only published in a
journal that makes the AESJ look like a major bastion of Science.

There's no controversy between ABC/hr and ABX. They are two different tests
with two different purposes. Many people use both, depending on the question
at hand.

Yet ABX is the test that Arny developed a computerized version of, and has
relied on.

What you can't say truthfully Harry is all that matters, which is whether I
rely on ABX to the exclusion of all others, which everybody knows is false.
It's all about the right tool for the job. I also use and recognize other
double blind testing methodologies, as they fit the work at hand.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the
normal evaluative process, you can almost be guaranteed
that it will not produce valid results.

Sighted evaluations would be the world's best example of that. There is
only speculation and no peer-reviewed scientific opinion that ABX interferes
with the normal evaluatative process, any more so than any of the
alternatives. Of course doing an evaluations is not identically the same as
just listening to music for pleasure. But, nobody has figured out how to
reduce that difference to zero.

One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
context of the variable under test.

Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX. That
you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the technical
gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
post, is a true wonder!

[bob]

On Apr 2, 9:28=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

=A0One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
context of the variable under test.

Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX. T=
hat
you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the techni=
cal
gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
post, is a true wonder!

Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test conducted in
someone's living room is too unfamiliar to be reliable. But a positive
listening test conducted in an MRI tube, well, that's the gold
standard!

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 9:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
context of the variable under test.

Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX.
That
you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the
technical
gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
post, is a true wonder!

Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test conducted in
someone's living room is too unfamiliar to be reliable. But a positive
listening test conducted in an MRI tube, well, that's the gold
standard!

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message


Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test
conducted in someone's living room is too unfamiliar to
be reliable. But a positive listening test conducted in
an MRI tube, well, that's the gold standard!

If you want to have an idea about what a listening test conducted in a MRI
would be like, please check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oI9YnhPNcQ

What the video can't do is give you an idea of how loud the irritating
buzzing sound actually is.

The noise level is dependent on the type of scan being conducted.

Here are some typical sound levels from the abstract of a scientific paper
about the topic:

MP-RAGE; 113 dB SPL linear,
fast gradient echo turbo (114 dB SPL linear),
spin echo T1/2 mm (117 dB SPL linear)

So there you go - if you want to hear the effects of 20 KHz highs, just do
your test while listening to a buzzer blasting in your ear at 113 dB to 117
dB.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 9:28 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
context of the variable under test.

Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX.
That
you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the
technical
gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
post, is a true wonder!

Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test conducted in
someone's living room is too unfamiliar to be reliable. But a positive
listening test conducted in an MRI tube, well, that's the gold
standard!

I can't let this piece of fabrication stand. Either you are deliberately
distorting the facts for effect, or you learned or remembered little from
the test.

The listening test was not done anywere near an MRI. A special room was set
up with an easy chair, soft lighting, plants, and a window wall looking out
at a peaceful scene. No equipment was in evidence. Music was played...in
ABBA order (order known to subject, but not assignment of variables.....also
not known to scientists conducting test....thus double blind). After the
music ended, the subject was asked to RATE THE MUSIC provided by A and then
B on a scale, using normal musical attributes. After a brief rest of about
10 minutes (a palate-cleansing, if you will), the test was repeated. Order
bias was controlled blindly and randomly, as mentioned. The test was
repeated several time among each of seventeen subjects.....who were music
lovers whatever their professions. The variables: a CD recording of
Gamelon music lasting 3 mins 20 secs, in one case played with the standard
CD cutoff frequency of 22khz, and in the other played with a separate
"super-tweeter" added (but electronically separated and amplified) that
reproduced the ultrasonic frequencies of the Gamelon above 26khz.
Statistical analysis showed that the sound quality was rated higher when the
ultrasonic frequencies were present. During this whole proceeding the
subjects did not know what was being tested.

The test you are disparaging did not involve an MRI tube and nothing to do
with listening evaluation. It was a separate test that involved EEG and PET
scans of the same 17 subjects in the same room. It was a completely
different test, and all the respondents were asked to do was stay
awake...the data being sought was generated by their bodies and recorded by
the lab equipment. The were then exposed to four test conditions at random,
and then in reverse order. These were a different set of Gamelon music of
approximately the same 3min length, once with and once without ultrasonic
sound present, another a 3min period of silence, and yet another three
minutes with only the ultrahigh frequencies playing (silent to the
subjects). The test monitoring recorded the test subjects physiological
reactions to the four stimuli, which were tested in random order and then
reverse order, and after a short break, repeated several more times with
order randomized. The result of this test was that the music selection
activated the portions of the brain active in listening to music, with the
ultrasonic-added variable eliciting more response, especially in the
pleasure-centers of the brain. Whereas the ultrasonic-only portion of the
recording, divorced from the audible sound, meant nothing and elicited no
response as did the silence variable. Again, these were statistically
significant results.

So....the results of the study. The addition of ultrasonics led to greater
listening pleasure as experienced and recorded by the respondents, and as
mesured by the lab equipment independent of the respondents control. And
notice this was without any direct comparison or choice to disrupt
concentration on listening during the test itself, in either of the two
tests.

The scientists noted two important things, in their opinion. One was the
creation of a relaxed listening environment that duplicated to some degree
the ideal home listening environment. The other was the use of musical
excerpts that lasted a bit longer than three minutes and more time between
musical excerpts than normally used. They explicitly stated that they felt
the 20 second snippets of music used in the testing done for Sony twenty
years earlier was a possible major flaw in the work that established the
22khz CD cutoff (in which case it is also a flaw in most ABX testing, as is
the quick switching). This latter conclusion was based on preliminary work
with the EGG system wherein they determined that there was a substantial
"ramp up" and "ramp down" in brain activity after the start and stop of
musical selections, suggesting that short musical excerpts and
quick-switching both had the potential to distort the musical experience.

I'm going to this length because it is obvious that Arny and Bob are once
again trying to disparage the test, as they did when I presented the results
several years ago. For newcomers to the thread I think it is important to
set the record straight. For anybody who wants to read the entire article,
it is he http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

[bob]

On Apr 6, 2:55=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

The scientists noted two important things, in their opinion. =A0One was t=
he
creation of a relaxed listening environment that duplicated to some degre=
e
the ideal home listening environment. =A0The other was the use of musical
excerpts that lasted a bit longer than three minutes and more time betwee=
n
musical excerpts than normally used. =A0 They explicitly stated that they=
felt
the 20 second snippets of music used in the testing done for Sony twenty
years earlier was a possible major flaw in the work that established the
22khz CD cutoff (in which case it is also a flaw in most ABX testing, as =
is
the quick switching). =A0This latter conclusion was based on preliminary =
work
with the EGG system wherein they determined that there was a substantial
"ramp up" and "ramp down" in brain activity after the start and stop of
musical selections, suggesting that short musical excerpts and
quick-switching both had the potential to distort the musical experience.

But Oohashi et al were wrong about this, as we now know. People
attempting to replicate their test have found that conventional DBTs
do detect differences with and without the mystical "hyypersonic
effect." So any claim that the Oohashi approach is better is
falsified. (Also, as a side note, it appears that what people were
hearing was actually IM distortion within the audible band, so they
were wrong about that, too..)

bob

[dave a]

On 4/6/2011 11:55 AM, Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 9:28 am, "Arny wrote:
"Harry wrote in message

One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
context of the variable under test.

Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX.
That
you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the
technical
gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
post, is a true wonder!

Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test conducted in
someone's living room is too unfamiliar to be reliable. But a positive
listening test conducted in an MRI tube, well, that's the gold
standard!

I can't let this piece of fabrication stand. Either you are deliberately
distorting the facts for effect, or you learned or remembered little from
the test.

The listening test was not done anywere near an MRI.

Just a side note, PET scans are done by injecting a radioactive isotope
into your blood stream and then going into a scanning machine very much
like a CAT scan machine. I know because I've had a PET scan. Trust me,
you don't want one and it isn't a very good listening environment.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:40:13 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:

snip

So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Not necesarily. If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
(stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology, etc.)

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and even
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluative
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.


Well put. These are some of the things that bother me about the body of
conclusions that many of these tests produce. As I have indicated before, I
have participated in many DBT tests where we have worked hard to set up
correctly, with level matching to less than a quarter of a dB both electrical
and acoustical, set switch times, long samples, the switch operator in
another room, all indications of a switch taking place masked (input lights,
etc.), the AB box (where used) in an insulation-filled box so we can't hear
the relays, etc. and we have returned statistically positive results for amps
and DACs. . I have also been involved in DBTs where null results have been
returned.

In those tests where a positive result occurred, I found the differences to
be so trivial that only a very anal retentive audiophile could possibly not
be happy with any of the units under test! While they all sounded a little
different in some respect, they all sounded good. The only time we got a
gross difference was when, for fun, we pulled out our host's old Dynaco
ST-120 and ran it against a new, and very expensive Audio Research Hybrid
HD220 amp. The results made us all laugh. The ST-120 sounded dreadful while
the AR was very neutral sounding.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:40:13 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in
evaluating MUSIC differences that other approaches (the
aforementioned Oohashi test) and even the ABC/hr test
have proven better at.

I find it ironic that Harry continues to idolize the Oohashi tests when in
fact they are among the listening tests I know of that are most different
from "Just listening to music" of all that I know of. ABX is not about
hooking wires up to people's heads or putting them into large scale
diagnositic machines that make loud clanking sounds when they run.

Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it exclusively.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the
normal evaluative process, you can almost be guaranteed
that it will not produce valid results.

This senstence is ludicrous coming from a proponent of highly mechanistic
tests such as those used by Oohashi.

One of the
principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
context of the variable under test.

That's what ABX does. Most of the ABX tests that we did in the early days
were done using proponents of the audible difference, using the proponent's
home systems.

Well put.

No, straw man.

These are some of the things that bother me
about the body of conclusions that many of these tests
produce.

We're aware of that. The real problem is that ABX tests don't support your
cherished beliefs about audio, such as the audible performance of certain
power amps for which you have *never* provided any technical support for.
Ditto for your cherished beliefs about high sample rates and magic DACs.

As I have indicated before, I have participated
in many DBT tests where we have worked hard to set up
correctly, with level matching to less than a quarter of
a dB both electrical and acoustical, set switch times,
long samples,

Well there you go. It is well known that long samples are an enemy of
sensitive results.

the switch operator in another room, all
indications of a switch taking place masked (input
lights, etc.), the AB box (where used) in an
insulation-filled box so we can't hear the relays, etc.
and we have returned statistically positive results for
amps and DACs. . I have also been involved in DBTs where
null results have been returned.

But you didn't say that the samples were time-synched within a few
milliseconds. I can ace any ABX test where the music is not accurately time
synched, even if the equipment being compared is in fact the very same
equipment.

In those tests where a positive result occurred, I found
the differences to be so trivial that only a very anal
retentive audiophile could possibly not be happy with any
of the units under test! While they all sounded a little
different in some respect, they all sounded good. The
only time we got a gross difference was when, for fun, we
pulled out our host's old Dynaco ST-120 and ran it
against a new, and very expensive Audio Research Hybrid
HD220 amp. The results made us all laugh. The ST-120
sounded dreadful while the AR was very neutral sounding.

Obviously the ST-120 was broken, and you have no technical tests to confirm
that it wasn't. If you ever did proper bench tests you'd know that
audiophile myth about this amplifier is vastly overstated and subject to
immense hyperbole.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it exclusively.

You developed ABX?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Apr 3, 9:54 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it
exclusively.

You developed ABX?

I built the first ABX comparator for audio gear and did the first ABX test
of audio gear.

The background is that our audio club (SMWTMS) was trying to develop a
practical methodology for doing DBTs. A series ofn equipment comparators
were built that were enhanced again and again based on experiences with them
by a committee of six club members including myself. I took the lead at one
point in the development process and produced a series of three comparators
that were successive enhancments of previously-developed concepts. The last
of the 3 could clearly be called a full implementation of the concept of ABX
testing. Additional enhancments by others resulted in the development of the
ABX Comparator that was described in detail in the Clark ABX JAES paper. I
also developed the first known relay box that could switch between two
pieces of high gain, high powered audio gear without audible switching
transients or other artifacts. The contact closure strategy for this relay
box was also described in Clark's JAES paper. I am mentioned by name in the
Clark JAES paper.

[bob]

On Apr 1, 7:40=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and e=
ven
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. =A0Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

This is a good example of subjectivists' penchant for inventing
science. (There have been plenty of others in this thread.) Harry
takes it upon himself to declare something to be true--that our
hearing perception is somehow different for music than for other
sounds--without a shred of evidence.

In fact, DBTs have been accepted as valid by the field of
psychoacoustics (of which Harry is not a part and in which he has no
training), to the point where no peer reviewed journal will accept
reports of listening tests that are NOT double-blind.

The claim that human hearing perception is more acute when listening
to music is not only unproven but false. Music, because of its dynamic
changes and the phenomenon of masking, makes for a very poor medium
for objective listening tests of any kind.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluativ=
e
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. =A0One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeav=
or is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.

Again, Harry takes it upon himself to invent science. There is no
evidence that ABX tests are less sensitive to anything than other
double-blind tests. Quite the contrary--it's pretty easy to design a
test that's less sensitive than an ABX test.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:21:09 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 1, 7:40=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and e=
ven
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. =A0Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

This is a good example of subjectivists' penchant for inventing
science. (There have been plenty of others in this thread.) Harry
takes it upon himself to declare something to be true--that our
hearing perception is somehow different for music than for other
sounds--without a shred of evidence.

In fact, DBTs have been accepted as valid by the field of
psychoacoustics (of which Harry is not a part and in which he has no
training), to the point where no peer reviewed journal will accept
reports of listening tests that are NOT double-blind.

The claim that human hearing perception is more acute when listening
to music is not only unproven but false. Music, because of its dynamic
changes and the phenomenon of masking, makes for a very poor medium
for objective listening tests of any kind.

Someone is confusing hearing acumen with LISTENING acumen. It is pretty well
established that most normal people hear the same range of sounds, both as to
frequency response and dynamic range and that they respond to these things in
a similar way. OTOH, some people, when listening to music, hear things in
music that other people miss entirely. This is LISTENING ability. You
encounter all the time the myth about "golden-eared audiophiles". Well, I'm
sure that I need to tell no one here that there is no such thing. But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for the minutest
anomalies in the reproduction of music by audio gear. There's nothing
"golden" about it, all it takes is a willingness to do it and many years of
listening experience. Anyone can do it, it just takes discipline and
dedication. Of course, the reality is that most people don't bother. Most
audiophiles don't even develop the skill. Noticing that others have developed
this ability has given rise to the "golden-ear" myth. Everyone knows the old
saw, "you look but you do not see." Well, the audio implementation of that
old saw is, "you listen but you do not hear."

[bob]

On Apr 4, 2:38=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Someone is confusing hearing acumen with LISTENING acumen.

That someone would be you, as you are about to demonstrate:

It is pretty well
established that most normal people hear the same range of sounds, both a=
s to
frequency response and dynamic range and that they respond to these thing=
s in
a similar way. OTOH, some people, when listening to music, hear things in
music that other people miss entirely. This is LISTENING ability.

Fine. In that case, the difference between two audio components has
nothing to do with what you are calling listening ability. It is not
that there are "things in music" which can be heard through one amp
but not another. It is that there are *partial loudness differences*
between the two. If you don't understand and recognize the difference,
you can't begin to understand the issues here.

You
encounter all the time the myth about "golden-eared audiophiles". Well, I=
'm
sure that I need to tell no one here that there is no such thing. But the=
re
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for the minutest
anomalies in the reproduction of music by audio gear. There's nothing
"golden" about it, all it takes is a willingness to do it and many years =
of
listening experience.

I seriously doubt there are many audiophiles in the world who have
trained themselves properly to hear differences, or would even know
how. If you think it takes "many years of listening experience," we
can confidently put you in the category of not knowing how. You can't
train your ears to hear the kinds of sonic differences we are talking
about simply by listening to music. Sean Olive does not train his
listening panel that way. The people who test audio codecs do not
train their test subjects that way, nor would it pass muster with the
ITU.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for
the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music by
audio gear.

I'm not so sure about that. In our experience, audiophiles who claim to have
sensitive ears generally don't do better than those who don't, once you
remove the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.

Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a sensitive listener
in the same sense that watching to see where the ball lands and rolls to is
a prerequisite for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of blind
testing, how does one know for sure that one is actually hearing or not
hearing a difference?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:22:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for
the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music by
audio gear.

I'm not so sure about that. In our experience, audiophiles who claim to have
sensitive ears generally don't do better than those who don't, once you
remove the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.

Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a sensitive listener
in the same sense that watching to see where the ball lands and rolls to is
a prerequisite for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of blind
testing, how does one know for sure that one is actually hearing or not
hearing a difference?

Difference? I'm not so much talking about hearing differences as I am just
listening to say, a phono cartridge and concluding that it's too bright,
deficient in bass, has a broad suckout in the midrange etc.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:22:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen
for the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music
by audio gear.

I'm not so sure about that. In our experience,
audiophiles who claim to have sensitive ears generally
don't do better than those who don't, once you remove
the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.

Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a
sensitive listener in the same sense that watching to
see where the ball lands and rolls to is a prerequisite
for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of
blind testing, how does one know for sure that one is
actually hearing or not hearing a difference?

Difference? I'm not so much talking about hearing
differences as I am just listening to say, a phono
cartridge and concluding that it's too bright, deficient
in bass, has a broad suckout in the midrange etc.

Now you've got two problems. The first problem is a matter of references.
What is your reliable reference for establishing the proper sonic balance?
Don't tell me its the concert that you went to three months ago because we
know for sure that you can;t possibly hear with precision based on a
reference that is days, weeks, and months old. The reference needs to be
very recent, preferably in the last few seconds. Then you still have the
possibility that your perception is a matter of bias and illusion, and not
actually happening.

I would say that your reliability as a listener is highly questionable,
simply because you deny potential strong influences and take no steps to
control them. Nothing personal - I would say the same of anybody who listens
like you, and science completely backs me up.

Why not turn the question around on me? Ask me why I'm not affected by the
same influences when I mix, equalize, choose and position mics, and apply
EFX when I mix live sound.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 7:40 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and
even
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

This is a good example of subjectivists' penchant for inventing
science. (There have been plenty of others in this thread.) Harry
takes it upon himself to declare something to be true--that our
hearing perception is somehow different for music than for other
sounds--without a shred of evidence.

In fact, DBTs have been accepted as valid by the field of
psychoacoustics (of which Harry is not a part and in which he has no
training), to the point where no peer reviewed journal will accept
reports of listening tests that are NOT double-blind.

The claim that human hearing perception is more acute when listening
to music is not only unproven but false. Music, because of its dynamic
changes and the phenomenon of masking, makes for a very poor medium
for objective listening tests of any kind.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal
evaluative
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor
is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.

Again, Harry takes it upon himself to invent science. There is no
evidence that ABX tests are less sensitive to anything than other
double-blind tests. Quite the contrary--it's pretty easy to design a
test that's less sensitive than an ABX test.

Did I say anything about DBT's in general? The Oohashi test I mention is a
double-blind test, and as you well know, Bob, I used double-blind testing
for years in the food industry.

Re-read the first paragraph cited above....I specifically reference ABX and
to a lesser degree ABC/hr. ABX was the technique Arny claims to have
invented and which is most often cited in support of "null" results.