Mkuller wrote:
wrote:
Such a 'verifying' test has not been done for a very simple reason:

The blind protocols have been SHOWN to be sensitive down to the lowest
instantaneous loudness that results in a signal at the auditory nerve.

It is a waste of time to do a 'verifying' test when a test validates itself,
based on already well known research data.


This sounds like the old "don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my
mind" arguement. You guys seem positive you're right in spite of being a small
minority in the audiophile universe. Isn't there a chance you are mistaken?

Of course the scientists could be wrong. If that possibility wasn't part
and parcel, they wouldn't be scientists. But you are the one who is
suggesting something is wrong and therefore the onus is upon you to show
what that it is. If something is wrong then it should be able to shown.
(or are you suggesting that irrationality be part of scientific studies?)
So far no evidence other than personal opinions has been offered.

Small minority? You need to get out more! It was once a minority that
thought the sun revolved the earth. Is that the kind of thing that's being
proposed?


Sure dbts have been shown to be sensitive to "the threshold of human hearing"
when the *one-dimensional* artifact being tested for is *known* and
*quantified* and the subjects are *trained* to recognize it. In an audio
component dbt, *none* of these factors is present. It is a very different type
of use for this test than is seen in published clinical research studies.

Instantaneous loudness/partial louness IS what we hear. It IS multi dimensional.
This is virtually axiomatic without actually being so. Please try to keep up. ;-)


In audio, the test is *open-ended*, i.e. what the listeners are listening for
(a *multi-dimensional difference*) is *unknown*, *not quantified*, and there is
no training of the subjects, because they can't be trained to hear something
that might not be there. Music is the only meaningful program source, and is
recognized by clinical researchers to be insensitive to audible differences in
dbts.

And Mike, how do you think of thresholds of audible detection of the human ear
have been established? They are pretty comprehensive and have been known for a
LONG time. The field is audiology, and the activites in that field compared
to what goes on in 'high-end audio' in terms of sophistication and comprehensiveness
are so great as to not even deserve a comparison.

Please try to understand the fact that music can be an insensitive
stimulus in terms of detection at the audible threshold has NOTHING to do
with the validity of DBT's. 'Differences' in MUSICAL terms are LARGE from a
scientific and analytical perspective.


Until there is a difinitive *verification* test for dbts between audio
components using music, there is no proof that a dbt does not mask or obscure
the very audible differences you are using it to detect.

You cannot rationally say that while understanding what 'partial loudness'
and/or 'instantaneous loudness' means. What is the point of irrationality in
the context of comparison of audio components other than personal
preference, which by definition involves personal factors, many of which are
non-sonic?

Frankly, I find the idea of 'veryfying' highly personal subjective
impressions with a scientific test bizzare, absurd and invasive.
I find it sad and amusing that some subjectivists are wanting to indulge
in such an activity, which actually fulfills the definitions of
scientism, in what is a hobby.