| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Long-term Listening Myth
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Feb 2006 01:23:29 GMT, wrote: But am I the only one who sees a huge problem with tests that are done mail order? Probably. I guess you are willing to exclude actual scientists. One of the best DBTs I know of was done by mail order. dCS sent out a bunch of CDs which had been mastered using different techniques, and invited comment without revealing what were the differences. Hmmm better than the vast majority of DBTs used in peer reviewed scientific research? i doubt it. Seems ideal to me, Good thing you are not involved in real scientific research. I think you would have a lot of trouble getting published if your tests were anything like the ones cited at the begining of this thread. as you can take as long as you like, use whatever comparative techniques you like, and you have absolutely no other way than listening to tell the difference. interesting that you can't see the obvious pitfalls of those tests. Scott |
|
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
|
|
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
On 16 Feb 2006 00:46:14 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... A few further details about these tests: The distortion included both harmonic and intermodulation distortion. (Tom Nousaine's 1997 write-up mentioned harmonic distortion specifically, but he tells me there was both.) Oh, hey, now there's an honest written report. Can anybody tell me why that would have been left out of the write up if it had been true. Seems to me a little after-the-fact embellishment.. Doesn't add much to Tom's credibility now, does it. If there's harmonic distortion, there's *always* IMD as well, that's an inevitable result of the same transfer function nonlinearity. Perhaps Tom thought that his readers would be technically competent. For Tom's experiment, comparing distorted and undistorted disks, all of the subjects had the commercial recording and were able to use it as a reference. The one thing they were not allowed to do was to use a second CD player in order to switch back and forth between the commerical and test disks. Other than that, subjects were free to evaluate the test disk in any way they chose. The bottom line remains the same: No one has ever shown that there exists ANY sonic difference for which any sort of long-term listening test is more sensitive than standard switching tests. Unless and until they do, the assertion that ABX and similar tests are inadequate to determine the audibility of differences is groundless. And was this test peer-reviewed and published in any reputable journal, such as the JAES? Were the individual statistics published? Not one single person could identify it correctly? How was the null determined given that the test itself was so sloppy? Just that half got it right, half didn't? Where was the follow-up you guys always insist on, to see if those who "got it" failed to get it the second time? Nice bit of double standards, Harry. Where is the one single shred of evidence that supports long-term *blind* listening comparisons? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
bob wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 15 Feb 2006 01:23:29 GMT, wrote: But am I the only one who sees a huge problem with tests that are done mail order? Probably. One of the best DBTs I know of was done by mail order. dCS sent out a bunch of CDs which had been mastered using different techniques, and invited comment without revealing what were the differences. Seems ideal to me, as you can take as long as you like, use whatever comparative techniques you like, and you have absolutely no other way than listening to tell the difference. Isn't it ironic that the same crew that so often objects to ABX tests because that's not the way audiophiles listen to music are going ballistic over two tests that actually allowed audiophiles to listen exactly the way they wanted? Rationalization seems to know no bounds around here. Isn't it ironic that those who allegedly believe in the scientific method and controls in listening tests would cite two so amazingly uncontroled tests as proof of anything? Scott |
|
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
Well gosh. The big question is how can i develop an imagination that
allows me to listen to 500 dollars worth of eqipment an imagine that it is Hgh-Fidelity? Consider: "New" is neither implied nor stated. Are you some sort of equipment snob such that the sound you expect has some sort of linear relationship to the dollars you pay? Let me give you an example, I will be painfully detailed so that the points may be made as to why patience is necessary. The process goes back now just-over four years. One day, while walking through the souks of Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia looking for a decent SW radio (I had just started working there and wanted contact with the outside world), I happened across a Grundig Satellit 700, NIB. I purchased said radio for SR800 ($214 for round figures), cash on the barrelhead. I took it back to my villa, and was pleasantly surprised at its performance, ease of use and the fact that it was also a not-bad stereo tuner. I happened to mention this on the rec.antiques.radio+phono NG. Yea and verily, this turned out to be a much sought-after radio amongst dedicated SW listeners. The following day, I went back to the souks, and with my 20 words of Arabic and his 40 words of English, managed to convey that I wanted all these radios he could find for me. We agreed on a price (a bit higher than the SR800 ultimately as he had to transport them from Jeddah and Mecca). Ultimately, I purchased 19 such radios, at an average cost of about $230 each, some a bit higher, some a bit lower. Most of them I distributed to friends and family at cost-or-gift. Some I sold on eBay, one peaking over $1400. One, I traded for a Scott LK-150, LC-21 and LT-110. Pristine, almost unused, with both original and a complete set of NOS tubes, all German or US origin. Net spent so far: $213 + $10 shipping. Did I mention that my wife (she found a nice job as well) and I got 30 days leave per year with transport to and from the US twice per year? Then, on eBay, I spotted a pair of AR3a speakers 'local pick-up only' about 30 seconds before it ended at a $100 opening bid. Got those, and close to the Son-in-Law for pick-up. Then, my Revox B225 CD player also snagged on eBay for $75 as it was misspelled, mis-listed and no pictures. $388 to-date. Add a dumpster-dive Dynaco FM-3 (actually found in Saudi, no kidding at all!). Add a Dynaco PAS-3 with all-smooth-plate Telefunken tubes found at a local flea-market (US) for $10. Now, add about 20 hours of my time substantially rebuilding the crossovers on the ARs, recapping the Dynaco PAT-3, and recapping and re-aligning the FM-3. A few replaced caps on the Scott, a careful matching of the output tubes (remember, I had 8 to start with).... Yeah... High end enough for me at a net investment of $388 + about $30 worth of assorted parts and about 20 hours time. And the Scott pre-amp and tuner are bonus material. Yeah, it can be done. Patience. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... A few further details about these tests: The distortion included both harmonic and intermodulation distortion. (Tom Nousaine's 1997 write-up mentioned harmonic distortion specifically, but he tells me there was both.) Oh, hey, now there's an honest written report. Can anybody tell me why that would have been left out of the write up if it had been true. Seems to me a little after-the-fact embellishment.. Doesn't add much to Tom's credibility now, does it. Harry, anyone who has any rudimentary knowledge of distortion will understand that when you have harmonic distortion, you always have intermodulation also. You cannot possibly have harmonic distortion without also introducing intermodulation distortion unless the signal is a single-frequency tone. Since there is no requirement that those who post or read here be EE's, then it might be nice if those who post "facts" about their experiments here (or quote others) include all the facts and get the facts right. It was reportedly a test of "harmonic distortion", not "harmonic and intermodulation distortion". Indeed there is no requirement that those who post here be EE's or understand what distortion is. But given that you should be aware of such potential lack of understanding on your part, it is highly presumptious of you, and it shows your prejudice, to assume that Tom's credibility is at risk here or that it was a "after-the-fact embellishment". If you simply asked why was intermodulation not mentioned earlier, that would have been a perfectly reasonable thing. |
|
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
wrote in message
... There is no such thing as an undistorted signal in audio. But there is such a thing as inaudible distortion which amounts to the same thing as no distortion as far as your ears are concerned. If yu can't hear it, then it isn't there. Each component, from micropne to speaker, has its own sound signature, which is added to the signal. And in the recording and preforming process they are part of the original sound and therefore are to be reproduced as exactly as is possible, no? Some 'distortions' are euphonic, others are not. Listening to a component over a period of time allows one to get familair with its signature. No it doesn't. It allows one to make biased judgements and convinces oneself that they are true. A quick switch blind test allows one to hear differences that long term sighted listening does not. Then, one can compare components based on that familiarity. Please cite any technical references that show any reliable comparisons for electronic audio equipment exluding tubed gear and speakers. AFAIK they don't exist, because it is not possible to do long term listening and do anything other than let one's biases run wild. A good case inpoint is the WAVAC amp, which was listened to without comparison of any kind and therefore Fremer couldn't detect the massive amounts of ditortion being generatred. |
|
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
|
|
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
|
|
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 00:40:30 GMT, wrote: wrote: Often, not always. if it were so then Hifi would be quite cheap. Dintcha know? It is. High-Fidelity is within the range of about any individual with say.... $500 and a little patience. Less if one has a lot of patience and a little luck. Well gosh. The big question is how can i develop an imagination that allows me to listen to 500 dollars worth of eqipment an imagine that it is Hgh-Fidelity? Actually, all you have to do is reign in your presently overactive imagination which insists that you can hear differences......... You don't think I can hear differences? You just trumped us all on the over active imagination. Well done. Do tell me what you think you know about my hearing that would preclude me from hearing differences. On the other hand, the depths of AudioPhoolery have yet to be fully plumbed. Objectivists are going to continue to get more ridiculous? No, if only that were true. you are going to keep arguing for its own sake, regardless of the logic of your argument. That is pretty funny coming from you. Thanks for the chuckle. Scott |
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
|
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... A few further details about these tests: The distortion included both harmonic and intermodulation distortion. (Tom Nousaine's 1997 write-up mentioned harmonic distortion specifically, but he tells me there was both.) Oh, hey, now there's an honest written report. Can anybody tell me why that would have been left out of the write up if it had been true. Seems to me a little after-the-fact embellishment.. Doesn't add much to Tom's credibility now, does it. Harry, anyone who has any rudimentary knowledge of distortion will understand that when you have harmonic distortion, you always have intermodulation also. You cannot possibly have harmonic distortion without also introducing intermodulation distortion unless the signal is a single-frequency tone. Since there is no requirement that those who post or read here be EE's, then it might be nice if those who post "facts" about their experiments here (or quote others) include all the facts and get the facts right. It was reportedly a test of "harmonic distortion", not "harmonic and intermodulation distortion". Indeed there is no requirement that those who post here be EE's or understand what distortion is. But given that you should be aware of such potential lack of understanding on your part, it is highly presumptious of you, and it shows your prejudice, to assume that Tom's credibility is at risk here or that it was a "after-the-fact embellishment". If you simply asked why was intermodulation not mentioned earlier, that would have been a perfectly reasonable thing. Tom was writing for a general audience, was he not? If so, then he needed to be explicit. As should you and anybody else here on a general purpose forum on usenet. |
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 00:27:01 GMT, wrote: In the biggest picture, I'm interested in how people experience audio equipment under ordinary listening conditions. It would be great if people weren't very sensitive to equipment changes in long-term, ordinary listening.. then I could save a heck of a lot of money. They're not - hence the oft-quoted but physically nonsensical requirement for 'break-in' time. This is actually the time it takes you to get used to any difference - assuming there really is one, which of course there isn't for cables and most amplifiers. So what is the minimum needed equipment for transparent digital copies of LPs? Would an M-audio "Audiophile 24/96" internal sound card work? I have one of those. Or is there a service in the LA area that would play my records on a very fine 'table and digitize them transparently? I'd love to have my vinyl albums on my iPod, particularly if they sounded just as good. I have my doubts they will sound just as good; however, I'm interested in trying it. Mike |
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
Sorry but that is just a convaluded way of rationalizing your claim.
hey I invested in a house in Orlando that has gone up in value by over 150,000 dollars. If I sold it an bought an ultra high end system with the profits does that make that system free? No. I am going to try not to be nasty. (convaluted... or did you mean deluded?) In the last 96 hours, I have purchased for less than $200 in total: An AR "Athena" Sub/'Sat system in like-new condition. Look it up for specs and parts. Make an effort to understand what it is. Another FM-3, this one with all sorts of after-market mods... however, the installer of said mods cracked a wire such that it was held in place by the insulation, not the copper. Even when the obvious defect was pointed out, he wanted to be shed of it. An AR integrated amplifier. A Rabco ST-7 TT Add $90 for a new stylus if needed. A Dynaco SCA-35 An Advent 300 receiver A Dynaco SCA-80Q Only one of the above from eBay. Just by answering e-mail. Most of it is already spoken-for, BTW. People commission me based on a budget and basic requirements. My "take" is usually less than 5%, often nothing, and the pleasure of handling some pretty neat stuff as well as learning a great deal. They don't pay until after 30 days _and_ they are happy. Now, look these beasts up on eBay, and determine what I could realize for them as near-perfect specimens... which they are or will be when I am done with them and if that were my game. With all due respect, you just don't get it. Patience, $500 and a little bit of parlay and High Fidelity by any measure is well within one's grasp. This is a hobby for me. I enjoy the mix/match. I own as measured by substantial design differences, 9 amplifiers, duplicates not counted (up one from Yesterday), and 10 different speaker systems (up one as well). The amps range in power from 15wpc/rms @ 8 ohms to 225wpc/rms @ 8 ohm. Tube amps run from EL-84 based to 6550 based. And so forth. next month, I will likely be down to maybe three-and-three (or I hope to be). Make room for the next round. And, if you want to 'go out and buy my system'... you can. Just be patient, keep your eyes open and your antenna up. Post your wants where they might catch someone's eye. There is TONS of stuff out there gathering dust just waiting for you to look for it. On the other hand, if you want to purchase *A* high-fidelity system vs. *MY* system, then the only thing stopping you is your own inertia. Massive hint: These days, Audio Dealers are in tough competition. Between the chains selling HDTV & surround systems and the general collapse of the audio-stereo market, they are hurting across the board. Many of them are not their own best friends either. However, those that are doing well tend to have very loyal customers and treat _all_ visitors with respect. I have developed a friendly relationship with several such dealers near-enough to me that I visit several times a year, and who know my predelections and taste. Quite often, their customers want to trade-in equipment. Neither of these dealers likes to do this, as perforce they must pay vanishingly small prices for these trades as well as pay to have them gone over by an (expensive) tech for a guarantee to any potential buyer.Then any cost of tubes and/or repairs. I am not so constrained. So, I get some interesting referrals every so often. Try this. Patience. Patience. Patience. SHAMELESS PLUG FOLLOWS: If you want to start with looking for **HIGH FIDELITY** systems at reasonable prices, get to the DVHRC Antique Radio Swap Meet in Kutztown, PA on May 11/12. The vintage radio community has a huge crossover into audio, and there will be a pretty large amount of equipment at this swap. Just a thought. I will be there giving a clinic on the diagnosis of vintage radio faults, basic repair and basic care and feeding, as well as essential life-safety stuff when dealing with tube or SS-based equipment. I will also have a bottle of single-malt Scotch to share on Friday evening. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
bob wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 15 Feb 2006 01:23:29 GMT, wrote: But am I the only one who sees a huge problem with tests that are done mail order? Probably. One of the best DBTs I know of was done by mail order. dCS sent out a bunch of CDs which had been mastered using different techniques, and invited comment without revealing what were the differences. Seems ideal to me, as you can take as long as you like, use whatever comparative techniques you like, and you have absolutely no other way than listening to tell the difference. Actually "using any comparative technique you like" is a problem, because there's no control. Isn't it ironic that the same crew that so often objects to ABX tests because that's not the way audiophiles listen to music are going ballistic over two tests that actually allowed audiophiles to listen exactly the way they wanted? Rationalization seems to know no bounds around here. This is ridiculous. I guess beating up your strawmen is an enjoyable pasttime for you. No test in the world is going to duplicate "the way audiophiles listen to music" because a test requires introspection about the experience and producing a response from a limited set of choices. The problem with the tests you described is that there were no controls on how people listened. The kind of listening that Harry and I would like to test, was simply not tested. The further problem is that you go from a couple of tests involving one kind of distortion into proclaiming that long-term listening has been debunked. This seems to indicate that you over-eager to debunk it. (And also indicates you think "long-term listening" is a single concept, as though there were only one way to do it.) This is remarkably sloppy thinking for someone who thinks he has science on his side. Mike |
|
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
On 18 Feb 2006 01:43:43 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 17 Feb 2006 00:27:01 GMT, wrote: In the biggest picture, I'm interested in how people experience audio equipment under ordinary listening conditions. It would be great if people weren't very sensitive to equipment changes in long-term, ordinary listening.. then I could save a heck of a lot of money. They're not - hence the oft-quoted but physically nonsensical requirement for 'break-in' time. This is actually the time it takes you to get used to any difference - assuming there really is one, which of course there isn't for cables and most amplifiers. So what is the minimum needed equipment for transparent digital copies of LPs? Would an M-audio "Audiophile 24/96" internal sound card work? I have one of those. That would work just fine, assuming that you have a good vinyl rig and phono preamp. You might want to do some de-clicking once it's digitised, or you might want to retain *all* the 'vinyl magic'. Or is there a service in the LA area that would play my records on a very fine 'table and digitize them transparently? Couldn't say, but you'd think there'd be a market opportunity there. I'd love to have my vinyl albums on my iPod, particularly if they sounded just as good. That probably depends onthe quality of your headphones! I have my doubts they will sound just as good; however, I'm interested in trying it. They should sound the same. Whether that's 'good' will depend on the original vinyl............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
On 18 Feb 2006 01:41:47 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... A few further details about these tests: The distortion included both harmonic and intermodulation distortion. (Tom Nousaine's 1997 write-up mentioned harmonic distortion specifically, but he tells me there was both.) Oh, hey, now there's an honest written report. Can anybody tell me why that would have been left out of the write up if it had been true. Seems to me a little after-the-fact embellishment.. Doesn't add much to Tom's credibility now, does it. Harry, anyone who has any rudimentary knowledge of distortion will understand that when you have harmonic distortion, you always have intermodulation also. You cannot possibly have harmonic distortion without also introducing intermodulation distortion unless the signal is a single-frequency tone. Since there is no requirement that those who post or read here be EE's, then it might be nice if those who post "facts" about their experiments here (or quote others) include all the facts and get the facts right. It was reportedly a test of "harmonic distortion", not "harmonic and intermodulation distortion". Indeed there is no requirement that those who post here be EE's or understand what distortion is. But given that you should be aware of such potential lack of understanding on your part, it is highly presumptious of you, and it shows your prejudice, to assume that Tom's credibility is at risk here or that it was a "after-the-fact embellishment". If you simply asked why was intermodulation not mentioned earlier, that would have been a perfectly reasonable thing. Tom was writing for a general audience, was he not? If so, then he needed to be explicit. As should you and anybody else here on a general purpose forum on usenet. For someone who offers *zero* evidence in support of his own viewpoint, you're very persnickety about trivial omissions on the part of those who *do* offer evidence. Any amount on one side versus zero on the other, provides the same infinitely higher ratio of evidence. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 18 Feb 2006 01:41:47 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... A few further details about these tests: The distortion included both harmonic and intermodulation distortion. (Tom Nousaine's 1997 write-up mentioned harmonic distortion specifically, but he tells me there was both.) Oh, hey, now there's an honest written report. Can anybody tell me why that would have been left out of the write up if it had been true. Seems to me a little after-the-fact embellishment.. Doesn't add much to Tom's credibility now, does it. Harry, anyone who has any rudimentary knowledge of distortion will understand that when you have harmonic distortion, you always have intermodulation also. You cannot possibly have harmonic distortion without also introducing intermodulation distortion unless the signal is a single-frequency tone. Since there is no requirement that those who post or read here be EE's, then it might be nice if those who post "facts" about their experiments here (or quote others) include all the facts and get the facts right. It was reportedly a test of "harmonic distortion", not "harmonic and intermodulation distortion". Indeed there is no requirement that those who post here be EE's or understand what distortion is. But given that you should be aware of such potential lack of understanding on your part, it is highly presumptious of you, and it shows your prejudice, to assume that Tom's credibility is at risk here or that it was a "after-the-fact embellishment". If you simply asked why was intermodulation not mentioned earlier, that would have been a perfectly reasonable thing. Tom was writing for a general audience, was he not? If so, then he needed to be explicit. As should you and anybody else here on a general purpose forum on usenet. For someone who offers *zero* evidence in support of his own viewpoint, you're very persnickety about trivial omissions on the part of those who *do* offer evidence. Any amount on one side versus zero on the other, provides the same infinitely higher ratio of evidence. What was presented wasn't "evidence", it was an anecdotal retelling of a presumed test...positioned as "an addition of Harmonic Distortion". Turned out the test was different than represented, and if presented correctly would not have been responded to by me in the way that I did. So for me, it was not a "trivial omission". |
|
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: The problem is that differences between audio products are not lilkley to be the same sort of thing that was 'added' in these comparisons (2.5% or 4% harmonic distortion). but if anyting, they are likely to be *more* subtle than that...and if 'gross' differences were tough to ID in long-term listening than in short-term, there's no reason to think subtler differences would be. once more, without the typo mangling: if 'gross' differences were *tougher* to ID in long term listening than in short term, there's no reason to think subtler differences wouldn't be. I have today stumbled across another set of experiments, including one that looked into short vs long-term -- and here was the conclusion about that particular issue: A/B tests "No evidence was unconvered in this study that would invalidate rapid, blind, A/B tests as the gold standard for audio research But the possibility remains...particularly in the study of room acoustics, [that] intelligibility , muddiness, and envelopment may depend on the time period devoted to listening to a particular acoustic signal" Dick Griesinger, "Perception of mid frequency and high frequency intermodulation distortion in loudspeakers, and its relationship to high-definition audio' http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt Correction -- it's *David* Griesinger. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
|
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
vlad wrote:
wrote: wrote in message ... There is no such thing as an undistorted signal in audio. But there is such a thing as inaudible distortion which amounts to the same thing as no distortion as far as your ears are concerned. If yu can't hear it, then it isn't there. Each component, from micropne to speaker, has its own sound signature, which is added to the signal. And in the recording and preforming process they are part of the original sound and therefore are to be reproduced as exactly as is possible, no? Some 'distortions' are euphonic, others are not. Listening to a component over a period of time allows one to get familair with its signature. No it doesn't. It allows one to make biased judgements and convinces oneself that they are true. A quick switch blind test allows one to hear differences that long term sighted listening does not. Then, one can compare components based on that familiarity. Please cite any technical references that show any reliable comparisons for electronic audio equipment exluding tubed gear and speakers. AFAIK they don't exist, because it is not possible to do long term listening and do anything other than let one's biases run wild. A good case inpoint is the WAVAC amp, which was listened to without comparison of any kind and therefore Fremer couldn't detect the massive amounts of ditortion being generatred. Cannot resist sharing anecdote from my past. It was a few years ago (may be 10?). I was making very good money then working as a SW consultant. So I decided it is the time to rehash my audio setup and among other things subscribed to Stereophile. In a second issue there was an article written by Michael Fremer about setting some new TT for review. Of course he prized it highly (price tag was very respectable) and among other things he said that LP's are inherently better then digital because 'analog' has an infinite resolution. I cancelled my subscription immediately. I expect from editors at least basic technical knowledge in matters that magazine is dedicated to. You'll get quite a laugh from reading the current issue of Stereophile, then. The lead piece is by Jason Serinus, a man who also practices 'whistling therapy', wondering whether objectivists just plain *can't hear* all the stuff he hears because, you know, they just don't have artistic souls like he does. Curiously, there is no reference whatsoever to the well-known phenomenon of listener bias. The thought doesn't even seem to have crossed Jason's enraptured mind, that he might be imagining things. I imagine it never has. Later on , Art Dudley touts the merits of Cardas' 'Myrtle Blocks' - blocks of wood milled to Golden Ratio proportions. Three of them placed under your gear (but not loudspeakers! they don't work there!) will make it sound better. Art heard it! It's a particularly pathetic display from a magazine that simply knows no shame -- and the hobby suffers for it. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
|
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
|
|
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
Bob Marcus wrote:
A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know about audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching snip Experiment #1 was conducted by David Clark and Lawrence Greenhill in the late 1980s. Clark rigged up two black boxes. One was a straight-wire pass-through. The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal. M snip Results were null. In a quick-switching ABX test, however, subjects were able to tell the difference between a clean signal and one with 2% distortion added. Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets of CD-Rs. One set of CD-Rs was a bit-for-bit copy of a commercially released song. The second set added 4% harmonic distortion to the song. snip Using a looped 6-second extract of the song, this subject was able to score perfectly. The above apocryphal stories are hardly dispositive of this issue. The primary factor is "added distortion." Dr. Earl Geddes and others have shown (in JAES peer reviewed articles, btw) that the mere addition of or level of "distortion" does not correlate to the perception of the existance of said distortion. In the case of the Clark/Greenhill "test" it is unclear *as well* if the above mentioned issue was at play, and if the gear of the day that was actually used was capable of distinguishing the intended difference, no matter how many audiophiles were involved. How the added distortion was produced is another issue as well... In the case of the erstwhile Noisaine's work, some years back he sent me a CDR of some "musical" work with various levels of 'unknown changes to the signal' (presumably some sort of distortion) which imho due to the nature of the musical segment itself was spectacularly poor for discerning *any* differences. Yes, there are recordings like that - ones that seem to sound "good" no matter what the heck they're played on or with. I have some. By way of example and illumination of the last point - when one is "tweaking" the values of a passive xover on a speaker system, changes of small values of C or R tend to be measureable, but completely inaudible by ear when listening to music. Put on pink noise, and suddenly very small changes of C and R are fairly easy to hear! The point is that some 'signals' be they music or test signals are appropriate to discern certain differences or changes, while others are not useful at all. BTW, In practice, when the xover in the above example is set optimally, the perceived impression of the speaker system as a whole is usually improved over the less optimal alignment. In summary, short switching is good for making some determinations. Long term listening is good for making other determinations. Imho, neither is perfect or sufficient alone. All methods involving human perception are to some extent variable, and less than definitive - except to the extent that in a general sense it is possible to determine many things, (for example its fairly definitive that probably no one can hear 100kHz...) using assorted 'tests', but as of yet, not all things. But, why does this issue matter to anyone?? _-_-bear |
|
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
BEAR wrote:
Bob Marcus wrote: A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know about audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching snip Experiment #1 was conducted by David Clark and Lawrence Greenhill in the late 1980s. Clark rigged up two black boxes. One was a straight-wire pass-through. The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal. M snip Results were null. In a quick-switching ABX test, however, subjects were able to tell the difference between a clean signal and one with 2% distortion added. Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets of CD-Rs. One set of CD-Rs was a bit-for-bit copy of a commercially released song. The second set added 4% harmonic distortion to the song. snip Using a looped 6-second extract of the song, this subject was able to score perfectly. The above apocryphal stories are hardly dispositive of this issue. The primary factor is "added distortion." Dr. Earl Geddes and others have shown (in JAES peer reviewed articles, btw) that the mere addition of or level of "distortion" does not correlate to the perception of the existance of said distortion. In the case of the Clark/Greenhill "test" it is unclear *as well* if the above mentioned issue was at play, and if the gear of the day that was actually used was capable of distinguishing the intended difference, no matter how many audiophiles were involved. How the added distortion was produced is another issue as well... The point is that in long-term listening tests, subjects failed to detect differences, while the quick switching ABX tests indicated that testees were able to tell those differences. Hence, ABX is more effective for this type of audible differences. It's not a matter of whether the differences are detectible or not, or whether equipment was sensitive. The point made is that quick switching ABX (using equipment of the day) was shown to be a much better test methodology for this type of detectible differences. In the case of the erstwhile Noisaine's work, some years back he sent me a CDR of some "musical" work with various levels of 'unknown changes to the signal' (presumably some sort of distortion) which imho due to the nature of the musical segment itself was spectacularly poor for discerning *any* differences. Yes, there are recordings like that - ones that seem to sound "good" no matter what the heck they're played on or with. I have some. Proving further the futility of long-term listening as a means for detecting subtle differences... By way of example and illumination of the last point - when one is "tweaking" the values of a passive xover on a speaker system, changes of small values of C or R tend to be measureable, but completely inaudible by ear when listening to music. Put on pink noise, and suddenly very small changes of C and R are fairly easy to hear! The point is that some 'signals' be they music or test signals are appropriate to discern certain differences or changes, while others are not useful at all. BTW, In practice, when the xover in the above example is set optimally, the perceived impression of the speaker system as a whole is usually improved over the less optimal alignment. In summary, short switching is good for making some determinations. Long term listening is good for making other determinations. OK, we have shown how quick switching ABX is effective at detecting some types of differences. What evidence do you have that long-term listening is better at other determinations, if audible differences is what we are trying to detect? What kind of determinations would those be? The ball is in your court now. Imho, neither is perfect or sufficient alone. Can you state how the ABX test is insufficient in detecting audible differences? Are there any difference that is detectible via long-term listening but not via quick-switching ABX? Time for you to provide something to support your opinion. All methods involving human perception are to some extent variable, and less than definitive - except to the extent that in a general sense it is possible to determine many things, (for example its fairly definitive that probably no one can hear 100kHz...) using assorted 'tests', but as of yet, not all things. Vague hand-waving noted... But, why does this issue matter to anyone?? Only because there are people like yourself who believes long-term listening works, but with no supporting evidence. _-_-bear |
|
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
bob wrote:
BEAR wrote: The above apocryphal stories are hardly dispositive of this issue. Apocryphal? You could look it up: Nousaine, T. Flying Blind: The Case Against Long-term Listening. Audio, March 1997, pp. 26-30. I believe he sent me a copy of this article. Regardless, I am highly skeptical of his methodology and test conditions, not to mention his predjucice and obvious bias in terms of the conclusions he has drawn (those that I have read). You are free to feel otherwise. The primary factor is "added distortion." Dr. Earl Geddes and others have shown (in JAES peer reviewed articles, btw) that the mere addition of or level of "distortion" does not correlate to the perception of the existance of said distortion. Dr. Geddes's apocryphal writings aside, your description of them has nothing to do with the case at hand. We aren't asking about "the perception of the existance [sic] of said distortion." We're asking about the perception of difference. I'm sure Dr. Geddes could explain the point to you, if you asked. The perception of a difference requires the perception of a distortion in this case. If you can not perceive an objectively present and deliberately introduced distortion where one presentation is "undistorted" and the other is "distorted" then both will therefore sound the same. Ergo, it is essential to chose the stimuli carefully. Refer back to Dr. Geddes research on this topic. Have you bothered to even read the abstract?? He is an "objectivist" you know... In the case of the Clark/Greenhill "test" it is unclear *as well* if the above mentioned issue was at play, and if the gear of the day that was actually used was capable of distinguishing the intended difference, no matter how many audiophiles were involved. How the added distortion was produced is another issue as well... The old "your system isn't resolving enough" dodge. How bad does a system need to be to miss distortion like this? (And how many self-proclaimed audiophiles--the subjects of these tests--have systems that bad?) Quite many. Perhaps mine, perhaps yours. Perhaps even a majority? Let's try the thought experiment/example again: - race car mechanics adjust the suspension height in fractions of an inch to achieve proper performance. Adjusting YOUR car like that has no perceptable effect. - Do we therefore conclude that: adjusting car suspension height has no peceptable effect unless the adjustment is extreme? - The correlate in audio is that: small changes in distortion amount or type has no perceptable effect - it is only audible if the distortion is extreme?? In the case of the erstwhile Noisaine's work, some years back he sent me a CDR of some "musical" work with various levels of 'unknown changes to the signal' (presumably some sort of distortion) which imho due to the nature of the musical segment itself was spectacularly poor for discerning *any* differences. Meaning, you couldn't hear any either. So much for your system. No one could with THAT stimuli. With OTHER stimuli it was fairly simple to hear!! Garbage in - Garbage out! Yes, there are recordings like that - ones that seem to sound "good" no matter what the heck they're played on or with. I have some. By way of example and illumination of the last point - when one is "tweaking" the values of a passive xover on a speaker system, changes of small values of C or R tend to be measureable, but completely inaudible by ear when listening to music. Put on pink noise, and suddenly very small changes of C and R are fairly easy to hear! The point is that some 'signals' be they music or test signals are appropriate to discern certain differences or changes, while others are not useful at all. BTW, In practice, when the xover in the above example is set optimally, the perceived impression of the speaker system as a whole is usually improved over the less optimal alignment. In summary, short switching is good for making some determinations. Long term listening is good for making other determinations. Evidence? Oh, never mind. You haven't got a shred. No, there is no evidence about how people decode and perceive sound? Please. Imho, neither is perfect or sufficient alone. All methods involving human perception are to some extent variable, and less than definitive - except to the extent that in a general sense it is possible to determine many things, (for example its fairly definitive that probably no one can hear 100kHz...) using assorted 'tests', but as of yet, not all things. But, why does this issue matter to anyone?? This thread's been dead for a week and a half. Why does it matter so much to you? Doesn't, thanks. I check rahe intermittantly, and comment on only some things that might possibly be interesting. Quite frankly, it seems that the same handful of people are still just arguing these issues for the sake of hearing themselves argue the point(s). Which is why I don't spend much time here anymore. Hope that explains? bob |
|
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
Chung wrote:
BEAR wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: A perennial claim holds that much of what objectivists think they know about audio is wrong because they rely on short-term switching snip Experiment #1 was conducted by David Clark and Lawrence Greenhill in the late 1980s. Clark rigged up two black boxes. One was a straight-wire pass-through. The other added 2.5% harmonic distortion to the signal. M snip Results were null. In a quick-switching ABX test, however, subjects were able to tell the difference between a clean signal and one with 2% distortion added. Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets of CD-Rs. One set of CD-Rs was a bit-for-bit copy of a commercially released song. The second set added 4% harmonic distortion to the song. snip Using a looped 6-second extract of the song, this subject was able to score perfectly. The above apocryphal stories are hardly dispositive of this issue. The primary factor is "added distortion." Dr. Earl Geddes and others have shown (in JAES peer reviewed articles, btw) that the mere addition of or level of "distortion" does not correlate to the perception of the existance of said distortion. In the case of the Clark/Greenhill "test" it is unclear *as well* if the above mentioned issue was at play, and if the gear of the day that was actually used was capable of distinguishing the intended difference, no matter how many audiophiles were involved. How the added distortion was produced is another issue as well... The point is that in long-term listening tests, subjects failed to detect differences, while the quick switching ABX tests indicated that testees were able to tell those differences. Hence, ABX is more effective for this type of audible differences. It's not a matter of whether the differences are detectible or not, or whether equipment was sensitive. The point made is that quick switching ABX (using equipment of the day) was shown to be a much better test methodology for this type of detectible differences. In the case of the erstwhile Noisaine's work, some years back he sent me a CDR of some "musical" work with various levels of 'unknown changes to the signal' (presumably some sort of distortion) which imho due to the nature of the musical segment itself was spectacularly poor for discerning *any* differences. Yes, there are recordings like that - ones that seem to sound "good" no matter what the heck they're played on or with. I have some. Proving further the futility of long-term listening as a means for detecting subtle differences... By way of example and illumination of the last point - when one is "tweaking" the values of a passive xover on a speaker system, changes of small values of C or R tend to be measureable, but completely inaudible by ear when listening to music. Put on pink noise, and suddenly very small changes of C and R are fairly easy to hear! The point is that some 'signals' be they music or test signals are appropriate to discern certain differences or changes, while others are not useful at all. BTW, In practice, when the xover in the above example is set optimally, the perceived impression of the speaker system as a whole is usually improved over the less optimal alignment. In summary, short switching is good for making some determinations. Long term listening is good for making other determinations. OK, we have shown how quick switching ABX is effective at detecting some types of differences. What evidence do you have that long-term listening is better at other determinations, if audible differences is what we are trying to detect? What kind of determinations would those be? The ball is in your court now. Short term listening would be useless for determining the differences in vocal quality, soundstage, the difference in two versions of a "mix" or the preference of performance (or recording) of two "takes." Perhaps even tough for preference of two recordings made simultaneously with identical or similar mics or mic positions. How this translates to effective testing is unclear, and I do not have a specific suggestion at this time. Imho, neither is perfect or sufficient alone. Can you state how the ABX test is insufficient in detecting audible differences? Are there any difference that is detectible via long-term listening but not via quick-switching ABX? Time for you to provide something to support your opinion. All methods involving human perception are to some extent variable, and less than definitive - except to the extent that in a general sense it is possible to determine many things, (for example its fairly definitive that probably no one can hear 100kHz...) using assorted 'tests', but as of yet, not all things. Vague hand-waving noted... Let's think differently about this. Perhaps this has "proven" something other than what is expected? What the evidence presented here shows is that short term listening is quite different than long term listening. The objectively introduced distortion which was detectable in 6 second short term listening tests was *absolutely undetectable* in long term listening tests (according to what has been presented here). In effect, in long term listening this specificly introduced distortion was effectively non-existant! This shows clearly that the mechanism(s)and perceptions of long term listening are profoundly different than in the short term. This leads to the following hypotheses: - short term and long term listening modes are fundamentally different, although some aspects may overlap? - reported 'differences' in the audiophile community have been mainly with long term listening, so testing needs to reflect this? - short term perceptions likely can not and are unable to be despositive of or identical to long term perceptions. - tests that are effective in short term listening protocols may or may not be so in long term protocols. But, why does this issue matter to anyone?? Only because there are people like yourself who believes long-term listening works, but with no supporting evidence. Please do not characterize my position in these rather limited terms. I have no bias as to short, medium or long term protocols, only against unwarranted conclusions and generalizations. _-_-bear _-_-bear |
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth
"BEAR" wrote in message
... bob wrote: BEAR wrote: The above apocryphal stories are hardly dispositive of this issue. Apocryphal? You could look it up: Nousaine, T. Flying Blind: The Case Against Long-term Listening. Audio, March 1997, pp. 26-30. I believe he sent me a copy of this article. Regardless, I am highly skeptical of his methodology and test conditions, not to mention his predjucice and obvious bias in terms of the conclusions he has drawn (those that I have read). You are free to feel otherwise. The primary factor is "added distortion." Dr. Earl Geddes and others have shown (in JAES peer reviewed articles, btw) that the mere addition of or level of "distortion" does not correlate to the perception of the existance of said distortion. Dr. Geddes's apocryphal writings aside, your description of them has nothing to do with the case at hand. We aren't asking about "the perception of the existance [sic] of said distortion." We're asking about the perception of difference. I'm sure Dr. Geddes could explain the point to you, if you asked. The perception of a difference requires the perception of a distortion in this case. If you can not perceive an objectively present and deliberately introduced distortion where one presentation is "undistorted" and the other is "distorted" then both will therefore sound the same. Ergo, it is essential to chose the stimuli carefully. The point of this test or another like it, was determine if long term listening was as revealing of differences as short term quick switching was. The people who were able to switch quickly between the distorted and undistorted signals were able to dectect it without any problem. Sorry I don't recall tghe exact stats on how many of the quick switchers detected the distortion but it was very high if not all of them. |
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
I've thought this dicussion through on many occasions and came up wtih
this test for the accuracy of my system.... I recorded the meows of my baby kittens using a rather expensive top rated condensor microphone connected directly to my pc. I then played back the audio through my stereo and observed the reaction of the momma cat. Then calulated the thd of the outputed signal. Basically a cats hearing is 50 times better than a humans. Even properly encoded Mp3's connot be effectively distinguished by human ears using a vbr of 187 with lame3.... I've worked in the Radio Industry for 14 years and have concluded that there is not much difference between the 64 db s/n ratio of radio versus the 105 db rating of cda to the average listeners ears. Some of the difference may include electronic compression which I also included in my test using winamp plugins uncuding Sound Solution v1.1. If you want more statistics give me a few months, I'm currently incorporating new speakers, amps, and mics for a different set of tests using a different theory human spl detectivity thanx to my brother-in-law the doctor........ |
|
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
"bob" wrote in message
... It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests. Do you disagree with this? More importantly, do you agree with this? Putting it bluntly, how often have you put your money where your mouth is? How many times have you bought a multi-thousand dollar component because you sensed its "superiority" over your own in a short term quick-switching test? I suspect never. |
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests. Do you disagree with this? More importantly, do you agree with this? Putting it bluntly, how often have you put your money where your mouth is? How many times have you bought a multi-thousand dollar component because you sensed its "superiority" over your own in a short term quick-switching test? I suspect never. about as ofted as I have bought medicine based on randomized blind trials I conducted myself. Should I therefore disagree with the premise that such methods are indeed the most reliable way to determine the effectiveness of medicine? |
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests. Do you disagree with this? More importantly, do you agree with this? Of course. And if you read it again carefully, you'll see that it is factually indisputable. (That is, unless anyone cares to offer a reasonably well-controlled demonstration to the contrary.) Putting it bluntly, how often have you put your money where your mouth is? How many times have you bought a multi-thousand dollar component because you sensed its "superiority" over your own in a short term quick-switching test? I suspect never. Of course not. I would never use a short-term quick-switching test to "sense the superiority" of one component over another. It's the wrong tool for the job. The short term quick-switching test is for determining if there's any difference at all to be heard. So, were I fanatical about such things (which I'm not), I'd first use the ABX test to determine whether there's a difference. If and only if I detected such a difference, then I'd use more leisurely listening to decide which I preferred. bob |
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
bob wrote:
BEAR wrote: Chung wrote: Only because there are people like yourself who believes long-term listening works, but with no supporting evidence. Please do not characterize my position in these rather limited terms. I have no bias as to short, medium or long term protocols, only against unwarranted conclusions and generalizations. It is you who are mischaracterizing. No one is making the "unwarranted conclusions and generalizations" you impute to us. We are merely saying the following: It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests. Do you disagree with this? Yes. I provided several rather self evident things that a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference. Do you disagree with this? For a number of reasons (well known to those practiced in the art?) a vast majority, if not all of the published "tests" have employed "short term/quick switching" methods... Since I do not have a comprehensive & definitive survey of the literature at hand or in my mind, I must decline to comment on this point beyond what I've already said. I will say that clearly there are *some things* that are detectable in "short term quick switching tests." Beyond that, there are few conclusions of a definitive generalized nature that can be drawn merely via the use of this testing protocol, and almost certainly given the manner and method which it has so far been utilized. _-_-bear bob |
|
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Norman M. Schwartz wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests. Do you disagree with this? More importantly, do you agree with this? Putting it bluntly, how often have you put your money where your mouth is? How many times have you bought a multi-thousand dollar component because you sensed its "superiority" over your own in a short term quick-switching test? I suspect never. about as ofted as I have bought medicine based on randomized blind trials I conducted myself. To the extent that said trials are NOT short term tests for the efficacy of a given drug?? In fact the trials you mention are actually the equivalent of VERY long term listening tests. Do we need to mention the names of numerous drugs that NEVER made it to market after "passing" intial short term "blind trials" only to be yanked quickly after very negative consequences were found in a minority of users? How many drugs proved dangerous even after they were bling trial tested, taken to market, used for years and found to kill people?? Seems like a poor analogy to me. _-_-bear Should I therefore disagree with the premise that such methods are indeed the most reliable way to determine the effectiveness of medicine? |
|
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
bear wrote:
bob wrote: It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests. Do you disagree with this? Yes. I provided several rather self evident things that a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference. Do you disagree with this? Yes. I do not believe you have provided "several rather self evident things that a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference." You have provided several things that you THINK a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference. But you are wrong. If two audio components differ in any of those respects, they will also differ in some way that is easily determined in a short term quick switching test. That is why short term quick switching tests are sufficient to determine audible differences between components. In order to challenge what I just said, you have to present evidence that there is some difference such that two components will not be distinguishable in a short term quick switching test, but will be distinguishable in some other form of test. And you have not done that. bob |
|
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
bear wrote:
bob wrote: BEAR wrote: Chung wrote: Only because there are people like yourself who believes long-term listening works, but with no supporting evidence. Please do not characterize my position in these rather limited terms. I have no bias as to short, medium or long term protocols, only against unwarranted conclusions and generalizations. It is you who are mischaracterizing. No one is making the "unwarranted conclusions and generalizations" you impute to us. We are merely saying the following: It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests. Do you disagree with this? Yes. I provided several rather self evident things that a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference. Do you disagree with this? For a number of reasons (well known to those practiced in the art?) a vast majority, if not all of the published "tests" have employed "short term/quick switching" methods... Since I do not have a comprehensive & definitive survey of the literature at hand or in my mind, I must decline to comment on this point beyond what I've already said. I will say that clearly there are *some things* that are detectable in "short term quick switching tests." Beyond that, there are few conclusions of a definitive generalized nature that can be drawn merely via the use of this testing protocol, and almost certainly given the manner and method which it has so far been utilized. Given your literal-mindedness on this issue, I have to request: Please demonstrate even *ONE AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE* that has been shown to require 'long term' listening on the order of times used in medical trials, to detect. . |
|
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
bob wrote:
bear wrote: bob wrote: It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests. Do you disagree with this? Yes. I provided several rather self evident things that a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference. Do you disagree with this? Yes. I do not believe you have provided "several rather self evident things that a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference." You have provided several things that you THINK a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference. But you are wrong. If two audio components differ in any of those respects, they will also differ in some way that is easily determined in a short term quick switching test. That is why short term quick switching tests are sufficient to determine audible differences between components. In order to challenge what I just said, you have to present evidence that there is some difference such that two components will not be distinguishable in a short term quick switching test, but will be distinguishable in some other form of test. And you have not done that. bob Ok you "win." The points and positions have been taken, and there is nothing more to say until such time as someone funds said tests, or someone self funds such tests. Which, sadly at this time I do not have the luxury of considering. :-( _-_-bear -- http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
|
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
BEAR wrote:
bob wrote: Yes. I do not believe you have provided "several rather self evident things that a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference." You have provided several things that you THINK a short term quick switching test is virtually useless for determining a difference. But you are wrong. If two audio components differ in any of those respects, they will also differ in some way that is easily determined in a short term quick switching test. That is why short term quick switching tests are sufficient to determine audible differences between components. In order to challenge what I just said, you have to present evidence that there is some difference such that two components will not be distinguishable in a short term quick switching test, but will be distinguishable in some other form of test. And you have not done that. bob Ok you "win." Why, yes, I believe I have. The points and positions have been taken, and there is nothing more to say until such time as someone funds said tests, or someone self funds such tests. Which, sadly at this time I do not have the luxury of considering. :-( And in the meantime, the established science will just have to prevail. That's how it goes. bob -- -- http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
|
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Long-term Listening Myth -- think differently?
I personally feel that short term listening tests are more reliable than
long term tests. This is because day to day differences can be caused by many factors other than the equipment (temperature, pressure, humidity, fatigue, etc.). There is one exception however. Is it possible that some artifacts that are not really audible BUT are capable of being sensed (extreme high frequency distortion for example) would not be noticed on a quick switch but would cause listener fatigue over a long term? ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') -- http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Arny Krueger and his two distortions | Pro Audio | |||
| FS: Audio Cables & Adapter Cables | Pro Audio | |||
| Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something) | High End Audio | |||
| wrap test | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
