The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality? If
the quality drops, why does it drop? What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

--124

"124" wrote in
message
ups.com
The following questions are for subjectivists. When you
close your eyes, does the sound from your audio system
decrease in quality? If the quality drops, why does it
drop? What is it about having to see the device that
improves the sound?

Generally speaking, the perception of sound quality and realism of a good
system is enhanced by closing the eyes.

"124" wrote in message
ups.com...
The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality? If
the quality drops, why does it drop? What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

--124


Those are really stupid questions.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:39:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"124" wrote in
message
oups.com
The following questions are for subjectivists. When you
close your eyes, does the sound from your audio system
decrease in quality? If the quality drops, why does it
drop? What is it about having to see the device that
improves the sound?

Generally speaking, the perception of sound quality and realism of a good
system is enhanced by closing the eyes.

But taking a "test" *doesn't*. Enhance the listening experience, that
is.

BTW, 124's question is misleading. I don't know many objectivists that
demand that people close their eyes during a blind test, so closing
ones eyes has nothing to do with the point that he's trying to make.

124 wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality? If
the quality drops, why does it drop? What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

--124

When in near or total ecstasy I find myself often closing my eyes.. This
happens sometimes during .... well .... and sometimes during listening
to my audio system. And no, closing my eyes does not in any way degrade
the sound quality I perceive from my system, on the contrary, loosing
the sight of everything makes you fall further into the deep, dark
valleys and majestic hills and shining decorations and larger-then-life
ornamentations of the musical soundstage..

In fact the borg dogma that knowing what's doing the playing and thus
making up imaginary traits to the sound in light of that knowledge is
spesifically based on "knowledge" and not just sight, I think.

If it was all about simply sight then blind people (and they do have
more acute hearing don't they) would be ideal candidates for double
blind testing!

"124" wrote in message
ups.com...
The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality? If
the quality drops, why does it drop? What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

--124


Here's a pair of eye gougers. Let us know what happens.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article . com,
"124" wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality?

No.
If
the quality drops, why does it drop?

N/A

What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

"124" wrote in message
ups.com...
The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality? If
the quality drops, why does it drop? What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

--124

You are "leading the witness."
Answering the question implies assent to the assertion.

I don't know anyone who claims he has to see the equipment.

It has been stated, with good technical reason, that removing eyeglasses
improves sound quality. It does for me.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality?

No.
If
the quality drops, why does it drop?

N/A

What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

Agree with Jenn, nothing. No arguing against blind at all.

It is other aspects of the ABX test that are problematical.

The accusation that anybody who opposes ABX is somehow endorsing sighted
testing vs. blind is a strawman promulgated by many here on usenet. 'Tain't
necessarily so.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality?

No.
If
the quality drops, why does it drop?

N/A

What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

Agree with Jenn, nothing. No arguing against blind at all.

It is other aspects of the ABX test that are problematical.

The accusation that anybody who opposes ABX is somehow endorsing sighted
testing vs. blind is a strawman promulgated by many here on usenet.
'Tain't necessarily so.

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it seems to be that many
people just don't think there's any reason to level match, and to hide the
faceplates. It's important if one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being blind to the faceplates
be done.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's ears. Nothing else is
required, yet some people balk at this notion.

"Fella" wrote in message
...
124 wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality? If
the quality drops, why does it drop? What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

--124

When in near or total ecstasy I find myself often closing my eyes.. This
happens sometimes during .... well .... and sometimes during listening to
my audio system. And no, closing my eyes does not in any way degrade the
sound quality I perceive from my system, on the contrary, loosing the
sight of everything makes you fall further into the deep, dark valleys and
majestic hills and shining decorations and larger-then-life ornamentations
of the musical soundstage..

In fact the borg dogma that knowing what's doing the playing and thus
making up imaginary traits to the sound in light of that knowledge is
spesifically based on "knowledge" and not just sight, I think.


Dogma is that which is not supposed to be challenged, there is no such
"dogma" regarding ABX. There is however reams of data about human beings
that shows that when they know what they are listening to, their biases kick
in and they "hear" traits that don't show up when they can't see the
faceplates. You should know this better than anyone, since you have
excperienced it firsthand.

If it was all about simply sight then blind people (and they do have more
acute hearing don't they) would be ideal candidates for double blind
testing!

Maybe not. Try this:
http://personal.ecu.edu/wuenschk/Sen...mpensation.htm

A couople of excerpts: You have probably heard the opinion that blind
people develop better senses of touch and hearing to compensate for their
lack of vision. If you consult with knowledgeable persons you may be told
that this is just a myth. For example, the class notes (PSYC 442Y5Y) of
Professor Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto recently included the
following statement: "Despite widespread beliefs that blind people have
better hearing (and more sensitive touch) than sighted people (the myth of
sensory compensation), there is no evidence that this is the case. In fact,
vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g., providing
information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus, the absence of
vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual tasks. Nevertheless,
experience and practice can allow blind children and adults to use their
intact senses effectively so that they seem to have greater sensitivity in
hearing and touch than sighted individuals"
(http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3psy/c...lindfeb29.html). When I
most recently tried to re-access this page, I found that this page and her
home page returned 404 (File Not Found) error messages, but she is still
listed as on the faculty. Please do pay special attention to the last
sentence in this quote -- blind persons may learn to use their intact senses
more effectively, even though those senses are no more sensitive than those
of sighted persons.

And this: There is, however, recent evidence that persons blind from birth
may, in fact, have different perceptual capabilities which enable them to
compensate, somewhat, for their lack of vision. Note that I used the term
"perceptual," not "sensory." When we study sensation, we study the means by
which organisms become aware of those energies and substances their bodies
and brains can detect. For example, when I take a sip of a good, single-malt
Scotch, what is it that causes me to have that pleasant experience as I roll
the Scotch around my mouth and then swallow it? Without doubt, there are
several sensory systems involved in this experience, involving sensory
organs in my mouth and in my nose. When we study perception, we study how
sensory information is interpreted. It is generally assumed that this
interpretation takes place in the brain rather than in the peripheral
sensory organs, but, in fact, the sensory organs themselves already be
extracting "information" from the raw sensory data before delivering it to
the brain. That said, I should add that the distinction between "sensation"
and "perception" is fuzzy at its boundary.

wrote in message
.net...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality?

No.
If
the quality drops, why does it drop?

N/A

What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

Agree with Jenn, nothing. No arguing against blind at all.

It is other aspects of the ABX test that are problematical.

The accusation that anybody who opposes ABX is somehow endorsing sighted
testing vs. blind is a strawman promulgated by many here on usenet.
'Tain't necessarily so.

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it seems to be that many
people just don't think there's any reason to level match, and to hide the
faceplates. It's important if one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being blind to the
faceplates be done.

No, it's not. Whether the faceplate is influential depends upon the makeup
of the listener. Many of us are immune to faceplates. You have no way to
challenge this, since you do not know us in any meaningful way.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's ears. Nothing else is
required, yet some people balk at this notion.
Sorry, but that's the major flaw of the so-called objectivists here. They
fail to acknowledge the importance of the brain.

McKelvy's song: "If I Only Had a Brain".

wrote in message
.net...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality?

No.
If
the quality drops, why does it drop?

N/A

What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

Agree with Jenn, nothing. No arguing against blind at all.

It is other aspects of the ABX test that are problematical.

The accusation that anybody who opposes ABX is somehow endorsing sighted
testing vs. blind is a strawman promulgated by many here on usenet.
'Tain't necessarily so.

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it seems to be that many
people just don't think there's any reason to level match, and to hide the
faceplates. It's important if one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being blind to the
faceplates be done.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's ears. Nothing else is
required, yet some people balk at this notion.


OK I'll do the tests your way. But
I prefer to use your ears. Mail me a pair.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
.net...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality?

No.
If
the quality drops, why does it drop?

N/A

What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

Agree with Jenn, nothing. No arguing against blind at all.

It is other aspects of the ABX test that are problematical.

The accusation that anybody who opposes ABX is somehow endorsing sighted
testing vs. blind is a strawman promulgated by many here on usenet.
'Tain't necessarily so.

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it seems to be that many
people just don't think there's any reason to level match, and to hide the
faceplates. It's important if one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being blind to the
faceplates be done.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's ears. Nothing else is
required, yet some people balk at this notion.

I've seen very few here on usenet, and certainly not Jenn, argue that blind
testing does not have its legitimate purposes. I've seen quite a few
(including myself) argue that ABX or other quick-snippet testing as a means
of doing open-ended evaluation of audio components is the wrong test for
that purpose.

I've also known many (including myself) argue that the uncertainties created
by sighted listening in the real world often times are less important than
the practicalities when trying to evaluate equipment for purchase.

I think you are to a considerable degree setting up a strawman.

wrote in message
nk.net...


snip, not relevant to following


A couople of excerpts: You have probably heard the opinion that blind
people develop better senses of touch and hearing to compensate for their
lack of vision. If you consult with knowledgeable persons you may be told
that this is just a myth. For example, the class notes (PSYC 442Y5Y) of
Professor Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto recently included the
following statement: "Despite widespread beliefs that blind people have
better hearing (and more sensitive touch) than sighted people (the myth of
sensory compensation), there is no evidence that this is the case. In
fact, vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g.,
providing information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus, the
absence of vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual tasks.

Do you see the irony of insisting that blind testing is "better" than
sighted testing for determining differences in audio discrimination. Note
that she didn't say that sight made the hearing less good, she said the
hearing was less good in sighted people when they were deprived of sight in
making perceptual judgments.

I'm not arguing against blind testing for certain purposes. Just pointing
out that you can use *her* argument, which you cite in your favor, to make
the case that "sight-deprived" testing among normal people "dulls the
senses, including hearing".


snip, irrelevant to above

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message
.net...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality?

No.
If
the quality drops, why does it drop?

N/A

What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

Agree with Jenn, nothing. No arguing against blind at all.

It is other aspects of the ABX test that are problematical.

The accusation that anybody who opposes ABX is somehow endorsing sighted
testing vs. blind is a strawman promulgated by many here on usenet.
'Tain't necessarily so.

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it seems to be that many
people just don't think there's any reason to level match, and to hide the
faceplates. It's important if one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being blind to the
faceplates be done.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's ears. Nothing else is
required, yet some people balk at this notion.

I've seen very few here on usenet, and certainly not Jenn, argue that blind
testing does not have its legitimate purposes. I've seen quite a few
(including myself) argue that ABX or other quick-snippet testing as a means
of doing open-ended evaluation of audio components is the wrong test for
that purpose.

I've also known many (including myself) argue that the uncertainties created
by sighted listening in the real world often times are less important than
the practicalities when trying to evaluate equipment for purchase.

I think you are to a considerable degree setting up a strawman.

Gee, THAT would be new and different! :-)

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

wrote in message
.net...

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it
seems to be that many people just don't think there's
any reason to level match, and to hide the faceplates. It's important if
one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being
blind to the faceplates be done.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's
ears. Nothing else is required, yet some people balk at
this notion.

I've seen very few here on usenet, and certainly not
Jenn, argue that blind testing does not have its
legitimate purposes. I've seen quite a few (including
myself) argue that ABX or other quick-snippet testing as
a means of doing open-ended evaluation of audio
components is the wrong test for that purpose.

Yup, if the tests don't support people's belief's, any excuse in a storm of
logic.

I've also known many (including myself) argue that the
uncertainties created by sighted listening in the real
world often times are less important than the
practicalities when trying to evaluate equipment for
purchase.

Whatever that means.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

wrote in message
.net...

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it
seems to be that many people just don't think there's
any reason to level match, and to hide the faceplates. It's important if
one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being
blind to the faceplates be done.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's
ears. Nothing else is required, yet some people balk at
this notion.

I've seen very few here on usenet, and certainly not
Jenn, argue that blind testing does not have its
legitimate purposes. I've seen quite a few (including
myself) argue that ABX or other quick-snippet testing as
a means of doing open-ended evaluation of audio
components is the wrong test for that purpose.

Yup, if the tests don't support people's belief's, any excuse in a storm
of logic.

I've also known many (including myself) argue that the
uncertainties created by sighted listening in the real
world often times are less important than the
practicalities when trying to evaluate equipment for
purchase.

Whatever that means.

It means hearing the equipment when and where one can, rather than passing
up the opportunity just because a blind comparison cannot be arranged. If
one could bring a magic invisibility curtain to an infinitely compliant
sales person, blind testing might not be such an onus. As I've said before,
if I had your box, I would consider it a valuable resource, unless problems
in transparency were noted. Blind testing is a good idea. The basis of our
disagreement is your assertion -- if you still make it -- that sighted
testing is worthless regardless of whether the listener has developed some
immunity to psychological bias.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

wrote in message
.net...

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it
seems to be that many people just don't think there's
any reason to level match, and to hide the faceplates. It's important if
one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being
blind to the faceplates be done.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's
ears. Nothing else is required, yet some people balk at
this notion.

I've seen very few here on usenet, and certainly not
Jenn, argue that blind testing does not have its
legitimate purposes. I've seen quite a few (including
myself) argue that ABX or other quick-snippet testing as
a means of doing open-ended evaluation of audio
components is the wrong test for that purpose.

Yup, if the tests don't support people's belief's, any excuse in a storm
of logic.

I've also known many (including myself) argue that the
uncertainties created by sighted listening in the real
world often times are less important than the
practicalities when trying to evaluate equipment for
purchase.

Whatever that means.

NOTE: Arny has snipped my last line it being a strawman argument, again
without indication as per normal internet ettiquet.

Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
.net...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality?

No.
If
the quality drops, why does it drop?

N/A

What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

Agree with Jenn, nothing. No arguing against blind at all.

It is other aspects of the ABX test that are problematical.

The accusation that anybody who opposes ABX is somehow endorsing sighted
testing vs. blind is a strawman promulgated by many here on usenet.
'Tain't necessarily so.

Who says that? It's not about ABX in particular, it seems to be that many
people just don't think there's any reason to level match, and to hide the
faceplates. It's important if one wishes to do anything close to an
objective comparison, that level matching and being blind to the
faceplates be done.

The best way to evaluate sound is to use only one's ears. Nothing else is
required, yet some people balk at this notion.

I've seen very few here on usenet, and certainly not Jenn, argue that blind
testing does not have its legitimate purposes. I've seen quite a few
(including myself) argue that ABX or other quick-snippet testing as a means
of doing open-ended evaluation of audio components is the wrong test for
that purpose.

I've also known many (including myself) argue that the uncertainties created
by sighted listening in the real world often times are less important than
the practicalities when trying to evaluate equipment for purchase.


It may be far more 'practical'-- as in easy -- to take a quack medicine than
to wait for it to be tested properly, but that's hardly an argument for
the effectiveness of, or claims about, said medicine. So the *practical*
method gives you nothing more, or less, than 'effects' whose cause is
still unknown... or wrongly identified. Maybe that quack medicine made
you better...or maybe you got better for another reason entirely. Determining
the *real* cause may require methods that aren't 'practical' to the
average consumer. But that doesn't make those methods *pointless* or
*useless*. They're still the only way that an accurate answer will be
obtained. What's *pointless* is insisting that you've already got
that answer, based on the 'practical' method.


*Practically* speaking, people look for more than just how things sound,
when they buy audio gear -- price, appearance, features. Which is quite
reasonable. What's unreasonable is to connect those things to the inherent
*sound* of the gear, as if that were a given.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...


snip, not relevant to following


A couople of excerpts: You have probably heard the opinion that blind
people develop better senses of touch and hearing to compensate for their
lack of vision. If you consult with knowledgeable persons you may be told
that this is just a myth. For example, the class notes (PSYC 442Y5Y) of
Professor Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto recently included the
following statement: "Despite widespread beliefs that blind people have
better hearing (and more sensitive touch) than sighted people (the myth of
sensory compensation), there is no evidence that this is the case. In
fact, vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g.,
providing information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus, the
absence of vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual tasks.

Do you see the irony of insisting that blind testing is "better" than
sighted testing for determining differences in audio discrimination.

It is more accurate and reliable, which is why it's the standard in science
and product testing.

Audiophiles should just learn to live with 'practical' levels of
uncertainty, and stop making foolishly certain claims about what they
hear.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...


snip, not relevant to following


A couople of excerpts: You have probably heard the opinion that blind
people develop better senses of touch and hearing to compensate for
their
lack of vision. If you consult with knowledgeable persons you may be
told
that this is just a myth. For example, the class notes (PSYC 442Y5Y) of
Professor Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto recently included
the
following statement: "Despite widespread beliefs that blind people have
better hearing (and more sensitive touch) than sighted people (the myth
of
sensory compensation), there is no evidence that this is the case. In
fact, vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g.,
providing information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus, the
absence of vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual
tasks.

Do you see the irony of insisting that blind testing is "better" than
sighted testing for determining differences in audio discrimination.

It is more accurate and reliable, which is why it's the standard in
science
and product testing.

Audiophiles should just learn to live with 'practical' levels of
uncertainty, and stop making foolishly certain claims about what they
hear.


And you should stop snipping off the remainder of the argument that puts my
quote in context, without even indicating you did so. Bad internet ettiquet
at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...


snip, not relevant to following


A couople of excerpts: You have probably heard the opinion that blind
people develop better senses of touch and hearing to compensate for
their
lack of vision. If you consult with knowledgeable persons you may be
told
that this is just a myth. For example, the class notes (PSYC 442Y5Y) of
Professor Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto recently included
the
following statement: "Despite widespread beliefs that blind people have
better hearing (and more sensitive touch) than sighted people (the myth
of
sensory compensation), there is no evidence that this is the case. In
fact, vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g.,
providing information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus, the
absence of vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual
tasks.

Do you see the irony of insisting that blind testing is "better" than
sighted testing for determining differences in audio discrimination.

It is more accurate and reliable, which is why it's the standard in
science
and product testing.

Audiophiles should just learn to live with 'practical' levels of
uncertainty, and stop making foolishly certain claims about what they
hear.


And you should stop snipping off the remainder of the argument that puts my
quote in context, without even indicating you did so. Bad internet ettiquet
at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Harry, the rest of your post made even less sense than the part I quoted.
I was doing you a favor.

'Blind' testing doesn't mean the person's *eyes are covered*. It doesn't
even mean the person *can't see the components under test*. It simply means
they can't know which one is in the circuit, except by what they hear.





--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Harry Lavo said to the Bug Eater:

I've also known many (including myself) argue that the uncertainties created
by sighted listening in the real world often times are less important than
the practicalities when trying to evaluate equipment for purchase.

I think you are to a considerable degree setting up a strawman.

You're absolutely right. In point of fact, duh-Mikey has NEVER participated
in a SINGLE audio DBT. Not one, not ever. Zero. So it's not just a
strawborg -- it's hypocrisy as well.

My theory about Mickey McMickey is that he feels powerless to solve his
real problems in life so he transfers his frustration onto a nonexistent
problem -- i.e. Normals who buy and use the stuff they like for their own
subjective, idiosyncratic reasons.

If Mickey didn't have Usenet forums to vent, he'd probably be haranguing
his kids' scout troops about DBTing twigs for starting campfires.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...


snip, not relevant to following


A couople of excerpts: You have probably heard the opinion that
blind
people develop better senses of touch and hearing to compensate for
their
lack of vision. If you consult with knowledgeable persons you may be
told
that this is just a myth. For example, the class notes (PSYC 442Y5Y)
of
Professor Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto recently
included
the
following statement: "Despite widespread beliefs that blind people
have
better hearing (and more sensitive touch) than sighted people (the
myth
of
sensory compensation), there is no evidence that this is the case.
In
fact, vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g.,
providing information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus,
the
absence of vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual
tasks.

Do you see the irony of insisting that blind testing is "better" than
sighted testing for determining differences in audio discrimination.

It is more accurate and reliable, which is why it's the standard in
science
and product testing.

Audiophiles should just learn to live with 'practical' levels of
uncertainty, and stop making foolishly certain claims about what they
hear.


And you should stop snipping off the remainder of the argument that puts
my
quote in context, without even indicating you did so. Bad internet
ettiquet
at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Harry, the rest of your post made even less sense than the part I quoted.
I was doing you a favor.

'Blind' testing doesn't mean the person's *eyes are covered*. It doesn't
even mean the person *can't see the components under test*. It simply
means
they can't know which one is in the circuit, except by what they hear.


Well, I'm really glad you taught me that, Steven. How else could I ever
have known that? Just because I ran blind tests for about 25 years doesn't
mean I really understand it now, does it. Thanks so MUCH.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Just because I ran
blind tests for about 25 years doesn't mean I really
understand it now, does it.

Tell us about all the blind tests you've done of audio gear, Harry.

That's all that would be really relevant.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Just because I ran
blind tests for about 25 years doesn't mean I really
understand it now, does it.

Tell us about all the blind tests you've done of audio gear, Harry.

That's all that would be really relevant.

Not so, Arny? Ever hear of "red-lighting" a test? Didn't think so. We
used it all the time in food tests....didn't "hide" the food, just "hid"
the sensory input ("color"). See any parallel to Steven's comment that we
don't actually have to be "blind" to run the audio test, just have no
knowledge of the equipment being tested.

The point is: their is a body of knowledge about test design...it simply has
to be adapted to the field under study. Most everybody running a "blind"
test knows that you are "blinding" the extraneous variables that could
influence the results, and in food research color is a key one. Nobody
assumes you have to litterally "blind" (as in the sense of completely hiding
or having the person shut their eyes) unless it is necessary to the test.

Steven was either being a bit naive or a bit presumptious about what I know
or don't know. And since he is an active participant on RAHE he certainly
knows my background.

As for blind tests on audio gear, Arny...probably three in the course of
forty years.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Just because I ran
blind tests for about 25 years doesn't mean I really
understand it now, does it.

Tell us about all the blind tests you've done of audio
gear, Harry.

That's all that would be really relevant.

snip irrelevant chatter


As for blind tests on audio gear, Arny...probably three
in the course of forty years.

Shame shame.

How many were level-matched and time-synched?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Just because I ran
blind tests for about 25 years doesn't mean I really
understand it now, does it.

Tell us about all the blind tests you've done of audio
gear, Harry.

That's all that would be really relevant.

snip irrelevant chatter


The irrelevant chatter was the main part of my post, showing that I know
what I am talking about. Obviously, Arny doesn't want you to see that if
you haven't already.



As for blind tests on audio gear, Arny...probably three
in the course of forty years.

Shame shame.


Not for shame, shame. These were the only times that I wanted to blind test
what I was hearing sighted and had the equipment for a long enough time and
a friend available to do it. Unlike you, Arny, I had no problem living with
my sighted judgements for the most part and almost without exception had a
very surefooted (i.e. extremely pleasing) system as a result. The one
exception is where I "hung" speakers for decor reasons, and had rolled off
bass as a result.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Just because I ran
blind tests for about 25 years doesn't mean I really
understand it now, does it.

Tell us about all the blind tests you've done of audio
gear, Harry.

That's all that would be really relevant.

snip irrelevant chatter


The irrelevant chatter was the main part of my post,
showing that I know what I am talking about.

It was all irrelevant to audio.

Obviously,
Arny doesn't want you to see that if you haven't already.

I figure that wasting bandwith once is enough.

As for blind tests on audio gear, Arny...probably three
in the course of forty years.

Shame shame.

Not for shame, shame. These were the only times that I
wanted to blind test what I was hearing sighted and had
the equipment for a long enough time and a friend
available to do it.

I'm surprised that it was all of 3 times.

Blind testing is usually part of a search for unbiased truth.

Unlike you, Arny, I had no problem
living with my sighted judgements for the most part and
almost without exception had a very surefooted (i.e.
extremely pleasing) system as a result.

Puffed up with your own importance, Harry?

The one
exception is where I "hung" speakers for decor reasons,
and had rolled off bass as a result.

Ever hear of equalizers, Harry? ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Just because I ran
blind tests for about 25 years doesn't mean I really
understand it now, does it.

Tell us about all the blind tests you've done of audio
gear, Harry.

That's all that would be really relevant.

snip irrelevant chatter


As for blind tests on audio gear, Arny...probably three
in the course of forty years.

Shame shame.

How many were level-matched and time-synched?

You going to explain to Sullivan how to do this a CD and LP
when Jenn says she still doesn't like CD?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:LovKf.14673$2c4.4920@dukeread11
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Just because I ran
blind tests for about 25 years doesn't mean I really
understand it now, does it.

Tell us about all the blind tests you've done of audio
gear, Harry.

That's all that would be really relevant.

snip irrelevant chatter


As for blind tests on audio gear, Arny...probably three
in the course of forty years.

Shame shame.

How many were level-matched and time-synched?

You going to explain to Sullivan how to do this a CD and
LP when Jenn says she still doesn't like CD?

Comparing commercial LPs and CDs is irrelevant to the question at hand for
the reasons I've already given.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

You going to explain to Sullivan how to do this a CD and
LP when Jenn says she still doesn't like CD?

Comparing commercial LPs and CDs is irrelevant to the question at hand for
the reasons I've already given.

Just remember that when you all start screaming for a test if Jenn doesn't
like her digitized records.

ScottW

copy-pasted:


In fact,
vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g., providing
information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus, the absence of
vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual tasks.

Yes, bingo! Well said. The senses help each other out. I've been saying
this all along.

You are such an incompetent borg that you come and copy-paste a writing
here that is saying almost the SAME THING as I have been saying (and
some of the other "normals") for a long time now; That seeing and
knowledge aids us in hearing the more delicate and intracate details
that get steamrolled over during DBT's and especially ABXing. That the
senses help each other out.

This is EXACTLY the reason why subtle differences *seem to* disappear
under the ABX precept. That one is supposed to be *deprived* of vision
(knowledge) in order to taste better, or hear better is an abomination
for the normal human being. All of our faculties of sensory perception
function interdependent of each other ALL DURING OUR LIVES. This is
absolutely normal. What is grotesquely abnormal is that in an ABXing
ritual you are depriving the faculties of sense and perception from
functioning normally, from the way they are used to function all the
duration of their existence and all the while you are claiming that
ABXing is supposed be a test to see if there are differences between
this or that source of audio while in reality it is a test of extreme
adaptation abilities, whether they exist or not, of the subject, the
poor soul that takes the test.

Obviously DBT'ing should be done, but it is something to be done by the
professionals, something to be worked at, practiced for a lifetime.

124 wrote:
The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality? If
the quality drops, why does it drop? What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

--124

Did you hear this rubbish from someone of your own ilk?.
If you love the music and want to concentrate you close .
your eyes. At home or in a concert hall. I find mannerisms of a great
musician such as Menahem Pressler very distracting and annoying.
I find also some prestige brands (Apogee Divas, M-L Statement,
Puppies) not worth the money eyes open or closed,
But you see I was not born when and where marketeeers
ruled.
So speak for yourself, please
Ludovic M.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...


snip, not relevant to following


A couople of excerpts: You have probably heard the opinion that blind
people develop better senses of touch and hearing to compensate for their
lack of vision. If you consult with knowledgeable persons you may be told
that this is just a myth. For example, the class notes (PSYC 442Y5Y) of
Professor Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto recently included the
following statement: "Despite widespread beliefs that blind people have
better hearing (and more sensitive touch) than sighted people (the myth of
sensory compensation), there is no evidence that this is the case. In
fact, vision helps us integrate information across modalities (e.g.,
providing information about what we are hearing or touching). Thus, the
absence of vision may lead to poor performance on many non-visual tasks.

Do you see the irony of insisting that blind testing is "better" than
sighted testing for determining differences in audio discrimination.

It is more accurate and reliable, which is why it's the standard in science
and product testing.

Audiophiles should just learn to live with 'practical' levels of
uncertainty, and stop making foolishly certain claims about what they
hear.


Sullivan again calling the name of Goddess Science in vain
where she has zero to conribute..
If you don't feel in your bones the difference between an
aesthetic judgement (Which is better tasting, more lifelike to
listen to, more beatiful to look at?) and "product evaluation'
I will not make you see it.
Go and advise the music teachers at the conservatory to
grant the degrees by ABX
And remember that it is a a myth that pleases such as you
that "sighted bias" is universal and affects everyone in the
world equally.
A scientist like you must have some convincing statististics
to back such generalisations.
If you haven't them then do please speak for yourself in the future.
(Some hope! Sectarians hang on to the Faith. That's why
they are called sectarians)
Ludovic Mirabel

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:fpwKf.14794$2c4.9125@dukeread11
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

You going to explain to Sullivan how to do this a CD and
LP when Jenn says she still doesn't like CD?

Comparing commercial LPs and CDs is irrelevant to the
question at hand for the reasons I've already given.

Just remember that when you all start screaming for a
test if Jenn doesn't like her digitized records.

The irony is the large number of LPs that were produced in the late 1970s
and early 80s, in the digital domain, and scratched on plastic by a
dragging rock in their last step of production.

In principle they are something like LPs that were produced from CDs.

Jenn's issues with the sound of violins on CDs are probably far more mental
than technical.

Jenn wrote:

What is it about having to see the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

The next question is very closely related to the previous question.
Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound quality?

--124

"124" wrote in
message
ups.com
Jenn wrote:

What is it about having to see the device that improves
the sound?

Nothing.

The next question is very closely related to the previous
question. Does knowing the identity of a device affect
the sound quality?

Knowing the identity of a dcertainly can affect the perceptions of sound
quality.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound quality?

Knowing the identity of a dcertainly can affect the perceptions of sound
quality.

It is a pity that more people do not understand that knowing the
identity of a device can affect the perceptions of sound quality. Or
maybe some people do not want to understand; people being people, this
is understandable. Hype's worst enemy is a critical thinker who is
able to, at least for a while, set aside his ego to examine the
evidence. But, again, people being people, I think the golden-ears
myth is going to have a good hold of some people for many more years.
And the subjectivist audio magazines know this and are laughing all the
way to the bank. JA must be very amused. JA, take a bow. You deserve
it, big guy. Audio has given me many laughs, and I think audio will
give me many more laughs. Pity.

--124