"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:l4BQa.59709$ye4.43301@sccrnsc01...
"Harry Lavo" wrote;

"Audio Guy" wrote in message

..some snips.....

OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no
relevance to the discussion of the audible differences in audio
amplifiers, only sound.


Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music. And that is
the
primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether the
music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
amiss,
is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
try
to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
*objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub. It
demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on. Let me give
you a non-musical example that I use here before...about a year and a
half
ago, I think.

Suppose you hear a split second of a car crash. That's all...half a
second
of indecipherable noise. You wouldn't even know what it was. However,
if
you heard a recording of street sounds, and auto approaching, a squeal of
tires, and then the crash, you would know what you were hearing. And if
you
heard it through two different systems you could probably which one
sounded
"most real". However, if all your heard were two snippets of sound of
the
crash itself, my guess is your brain would be trying so hard to make
sense
of what you were hearing you couldn't evaluate anything in the way of
which
sounded most "real" because you didn't know what "real" was.

But, even then you'd still be unable to interpret that context unless
you'd
heard a real crash on a real street. How many have except for a film or TV
show?


Actually I've had two happen within 50 yards of where I was standing. Not a
happy sound.

Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
we
call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally.


They do? Why does the natural sound of loons crying on a lake or a
rainstorm or
the sound of lake water or a stream get second billing?


Yep, they do. And if you don't know this you haven't been following brain
research during the last 15 years very closely.

As for a loon, or a stream, they are very nice sounds but they are not
music. The brain seems hardwired for components of "music" based on much
research.

Further the work done by
Oohashi et al (The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 83 No. 6 June 2000,
pp.
3548-3558) indicated that this emotional response took place over time,
as
much as twenty seconds of time, from the time of the sound. Presumable
this
is the time it takes the brain to recognize and interpret the music as
pleasurable, unpleasurable, rhythmically coherent or incoherent, etc.

"Presumable"? You're just making presumptions that you believe will undo
extant evidence that's uncomfortable for you.


I say presumable(sic) because Oohashi et al speculated that this was the
reason for the delayed response, but it was only that..informed speculation.
They didn't have the exact response time or reasons for it pinned down. But
they did note it as fact.

This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and determine
its impact as "music". The factors affecting how we respond to music are
apparently very subtle and "time-based" and "harmony-based" and not
static.
But a short burst comparison without much in the way of context for
recognition, relaxation, and response (which is the way most
short-interval
testing is done) tends to short-circuit the process. This is the
objection
must "subjectivists" have to ABX'ng in practice and why they question
"null
results" that seem so at odds with so many people's otherwise fairly
clear
perceptions of differences.

No; you're just responding to the results IMO because your "fairly clear
perceptions of differences." can't be verified with listening bias
controls
implemented.


Tom's Mantra: "no, you're just not haring what you want to hear". Nice that
you know my motivations, Tom. Do I presume to know your's. Seems to me
anybody who holds a point different from yours is always accused of being
dishonest. Think about it .... (deeply).

And then apologize.


Oohashi et al indicate in the quoted article that they have confirmed
this
speculation. That is, they have used short-interval comparisons of
music,
and found "no difference" in ratings in line with accepted believe. But
when using "long-intervals" using the same stimuli and sequentially
monadic
ratings, the achieved statistically significant differences in response
to
the two stimuli.

You "amps is amps" people seem to want to ignore this finding, which is
pretty earthshaking and has nothing to do with whether you think the
"ultrasonic" portion of this test was done correctly or not, since
presumable the same stimulus was used in the precursor test (although to
be
fair this should have been better documented in the article rather than
treated as almost a passing reference). This finding alone, if
substantiated by others, would rule out much of the abx and possibly most
of
the dbt's done to date.

And, Tom, before you say it, I know dbt'ng doesn't *have* to be done that
way, but the fact is most of it has been done that way.

Let me refer you to "Flying Blind" (Audio, 1997) which confirms that short
intervals are the optimal method for detecting difference. You'll have to
find
a better passing reference Harry.


Did I not say that it was the "accepted belief". Does scientific finding
stop when it confirms your opinion?
Then I quess the world would still be flat, wouldn't it? And the sun still
circling us?


Back to the main point; evaluating components is *not* hearing
differences,
but evaluating how possible differences effect emotional and rhythmic
response from us as humans. There is a big difference. And the answer
to
the "there have to be differences fist" response is....how do you not
know
there aren't if the test itself tends to short circuit those responses.

Because the methods don't. Bias controls short-circuit non-sound and
non-music
responses that have nothing to do with true stimulus differences.


They do that but what else in the process? They may also substitute an
illegitimate measurement technique for a more legitmate technique. If so,
what does a null hypthesis prove....?

This is why there have been requests for evidence of rigor in the testing
and for validation of the abx and abc/hr testing themselves versus other
forms of testing (for example the sequential proto-monadic used by
Oohashi
et al which do purport to measure differences. it cannot just be assumed
away.

That's right; wishin' and hopin' and presumin' don't make for confideden
results that you and all the proponents never been able to verify with
even the
simplest of bias controls implemented, simple as putting a blanket over
the
amplifiers.


Once again he ducks the need to verify and support in a positive way his
chosen instrument!