---MIKE--- wrote:
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?

The first question you need to address is, If it's not audible, how is
it capable of being sensed? So far as I know, our ears do not respond
at all to ultrasonic frquencies, so what sensory organ is responsible
for sensing this and delivering some signal to the brain? Until you can
answer that, there's no point in speculating on what kind of test would
be capable of detecing it.

bob

bob wrote:
snip


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


bob, I find this very confusing indeed!



Let me see if I understand this correctly or not?

You proposed to first do a short-term quick switching test to determine
that there is objectively (by your own standards) *no difference(s)*
whatsoever? Is it not the case that all amplifiers of sufficiently low
distortion (practially all of them...) run unclipped have no discernable
differences?? Is this not what the "objectivists" have been claiming??
Isn't this what the Sensible Sound and similar publications have been
saying??

Then you propose that you would decide which one you prefer?? Say what?
This is where I get really really confused! How to decide on a leisurely
listening basis that you prefer one or the other?? Is not there no
audible difference between "properly designed amplifiers" (virtually all
of them)?

Would you not have on hand an "objectively" blameless amplifier standard
to compare to, and simply NOT consider using an amp where you could
detect *any* audible difference between it and the DUT in the initial
short/quick testing?? If not, why would you consider using an amp where
you *could* hear a difference between it and your standard??

And, if you heard a difference are you saying that you could *not*
decide which "difference" you preferred using a short/quick switch test?
But, you could decide which you preferred using long term listening?

What could you possibly determine using long term listening that you
could not in short term listening, given that your claim is that long
term listening is incapable of *determining* IF there are any
differences in the first place!?! Logically, it would seem that there
would therefore be *no audible* differences between the the two units -
(according to the published tests cited) ergo no audible basis for
making a *preference* based on long-term listening. If there is a basis
for making a decision/preference in long-term listening then what would
that be in specific?? Are you saying that you can hear something in long
term listening that you can not in short/quick tests??

Now I am truly puzzled.

_-_-bear

bob wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:

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?


The first question you need to address is, If it's not audible, how is
it capable of being sensed? So far as I know, our ears do not respond
at all to ultrasonic frquencies, so what sensory organ is responsible
for sensing this and delivering some signal to the brain? Until you can
answer that, there's no point in speculating on what kind of test would
be capable of detecing it.

bob


There was a recent scientific paper published (within the past few
years) that showed a positive correlation between the presence of
ultrasonic infomation (part of the original recording, not distortion)
and the ability to detect it as a positive preference over the version
without the ultrasonics... are you unaware of this paper bob?

_-_-bear
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

bear wrote:
bob wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:

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?


The first question you need to address is, If it's not audible, how is
it capable of being sensed? So far as I know, our ears do not respond
at all to ultrasonic frquencies, so what sensory organ is responsible
for sensing this and delivering some signal to the brain? Until you can
answer that, there's no point in speculating on what kind of test would
be capable of detecing it.

bob


There was a recent scientific paper published (within the past few
years) that showed a positive correlation between the presence of
ultrasonic infomation (part of the original recording, not distortion)
and the ability to detect it as a positive preference over the version
without the ultrasonics... are you unaware of this paper bob?

Not only am I aware of it, but--unlike you--I've actually read it. Its
weaknesses have been discussed ad nauseam here, so you can search the
archives if you're interested. But even the author of that paper
couldn't explain "how it is capable of being sensed," which you'd know
if you'd read it. He concedes that the ear isn't capable of detecting
signals in the ultrasonic range. That alone is sufficient reason to
take the paper's findings as tentative at best. The fact that it has
yet to be replicated is another.

bob
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"bear" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:

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?


The first question you need to address is, If it's not audible, how is
it capable of being sensed? So far as I know, our ears do not respond
at all to ultrasonic frquencies, so what sensory organ is responsible
for sensing this and delivering some signal to the brain? Until you can
answer that, there's no point in speculating on what kind of test would
be capable of detecing it.

bob


There was a recent scientific paper published (within the past few years)
that showed a positive correlation between the presence of ultrasonic
infomation (part of the original recording, not distortion) and the
ability to detect it as a positive preference over the version without the
ultrasonics... are you unaware of this paper bob?

_-_-bear


I assume you are referring to Oohashi, et. al. --:

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

Bob can speak for himself, but based on his past posts here and elsewhere, I
think he'd like to forget that it exists.

--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"bear" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:

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?


The first question you need to address is, If it's not audible, how is
it capable of being sensed? So far as I know, our ears do not respond
at all to ultrasonic frquencies, so what sensory organ is responsible
for sensing this and delivering some signal to the brain? Until you can
answer that, there's no point in speculating on what kind of test would
be capable of detecing it.

bob


There was a recent scientific paper published (within the past few years)
that showed a positive correlation between the presence of ultrasonic
infomation (part of the original recording, not distortion) and the
ability to detect it as a positive preference over the version without the
ultrasonics... are you unaware of this paper bob?

The one by Oohashi? http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548


IIRC this has not been peer reviewed and generally considerd to be
incorrect in it's conlusions.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

wrote in message ...
"bear" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:

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?


The first question you need to address is, If it's not audible, how is
it capable of being sensed? So far as I know, our ears do not respond
at all to ultrasonic frquencies, so what sensory organ is responsible
for sensing this and delivering some signal to the brain? Until you can
answer that, there's no point in speculating on what kind of test would
be capable of detecing it.

bob


There was a recent scientific paper published (within the past few years)
that showed a positive correlation between the presence of ultrasonic
infomation (part of the original recording, not distortion) and the
ability to detect it as a positive preference over the version without
the
ultrasonics... are you unaware of this paper bob?

The one by Oohashi? http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548


IIRC this has not been peer reviewed and generally considerd to be
incorrect in it's conlusions.

It was peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Neuropsychology. It is
considered incorrect in it's conclusions only by the more vocal objectivists
here on usenet like yourself, because it challenges what they consider
settled science, and their worldview doesn't allow for audio unknowns.

As to follow-up...the test they did took years, customer equipment, a large
and highly specialized team, and very sophisticated medical facilities to
do. They have arranged to make input material and modified equipment
available to people who want to do follow up research. But since this was
just published a few years ago and the equipment made available in 2004,
don't hold your breath. My guess is it will be 2007-2010 until similar
studies confirming or denying are published.



--

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
"bear" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:

snip



The one by Oohashi? http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548


IIRC this has not been peer reviewed and generally considerd to be
incorrect in it's conlusions.

It was peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Neuropsychology. It
is

Sorry, make that the Journal of Neurophysiology. All I had to do was look
above. Duh!

snip



--