[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.