On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 04:30:57 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

Bruce Abrams wrote:

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message

...snip to content .........

By the way, I asked a friend to listen along with me. His opinions
were exactly the same.

And he knew what he was listening to as well, correct?

Here's another take on the "we all heard it" consensus. In the group
open listening sessions I've witnessed the routine is interesting:

First the Owner/Host/Presenter (they are nearly universally comparative)
does a direct comparison or often a "comparison" with other products
that aren't present, and asks "What did you think?" or, more common
"Which Did You Prefer?" In direct comparisons there are often apparent
level differences; but never is there a controlled attempt to level
match. Further the O/H/P often primes the well with comments prior such
as "we'll most people hear x,y and z).

Next one ot two listeners express a comment and IF it's not the answer
the O/H/P wants he says "Let's Try It Again with BETTER Program
Material" and then repeats the process. If the "group" hasn't delivered
the expected results this gets repeated UNTIL the 'right" or at least
acceptable answers are obtained and then the presentation is finished.

Listeners seldom say "they sounded the same to me" and there are often
negotiations about what the real sound was "Well maybe you didn't hear
the do-dah midrange but surely you heard the increased transparency...?"

And eventually those who 'are' willing to speak will come to 'agreement'
on what they heard; and then the experiment will go into anecdotal
history that "everybody heard this."

A number of books out there in the Scientific realm comment on how
many projects are started based on "anecdotal" activity. It is this
realm where an awareness level is brought to the attention of others
working in a given Scientific domain and interest is raised. So be a
bit wary of downplaying "anecdotal" notations. Unless "anecdotal"
infomation flow is allowed many important facts will be squashed.
Getting to the truth of a given issue is often assisted greatly by the
much derided "anecdotal" information.

Let me give you an interesting anecdote about this process. Clarke
Johnson, an avid high-end audio retailer, and long time promoter of
"absolute polarity" gave a paper at an AES Convention where he said that
he'd done Triple Blind Experiments (3X-Blind, according to his
interpretation meant that subjects didn't "know" that they were in an
experiment) where 22 of 22 subjects reliably "heard" absolute polarity.

At a subsequent CES show I was in a exhibit room and I saw Clarke
expressing his beliefs about AP to a Conventioneer. I said that nothing
he was saying had ever been verified under bias controlled conditions.

Bias Controlled...you are going to control this? Every opinion you
have has "bias" all wrapped up in. Enjoy your bias...you sure can' t
escape it!! BTW..bias is not bad..contrary to modern day "political
correctness"...it is based on your experiences regarding matters that
required a mental "yea" or "nay"...it is part of your intellect.
...and can help you make a better decision.

So he then announced to the room; "hold on everybody we're going to do a
test" and he then played a 2-minute segment of an LP; walked behind the
tower speakers and made a 'do' about doing something back there.

Then he repeated the same music segment; and then asked "Did anybody
hear a difference?" The guy next to me looked quizzical, shrugging his
shoulders and then finally raised his hand when he saw a few others
doing so.

Then Clarke counted the raised hands and loudly proclaimed "See 6 out of
6 heard a difference." I then pointed out that I hadn't raised my hand
(they did not sound different to me) and he conceded "OK 6 out of 7"
totally ignoring that there were at least a DOZEN listeners present.

Open social listening sessions often have the same interpretative error
mechanisms; no data is compiled; negotiation between subjects is
allowed, subjects who do not speak out vocally are ignored and only
acceptable answers are accepted or acknowledged.

Mercy..".interpretative error" compared to what..who defines the
standard that qualifies an "interpretive error"..This stuff is
getting a bit thick. There are variables in the "ear-brain"
interpretation between each individual. Those out there that have a
standard all figured out are to be commended... or perhaps the brunt
of a few "guffaws". Perhaps, isolating parts of the mental process
during the listening process will evolve into a new
discipline...NOT!! Mercy! This is a bit much...reality where art
thou?? This is heading into thicket of "illogic"...someone save us
all from these mental distortions!

As a group, some of them, browbeaten by those in the crowd that has
it all figured out, others that merely comment on the positive or
negative character of the component being listened to..so be it.
Also, get rid of the "test" syndrome! This implication that somehow
this "no data compiled" and "subjects make comments" are a dreadful
sin. This is somewhat humorous. There will be an interchange of
comments and ideas. With all the variables out there
this is what the session will evolve into. This is good, one cannot
compile any data that will not be somewhat different in another
session. Surely, one recognizes this characteristic in this Audio
domain! Unless they have a super scientific switching device that
can shave the audio spectrum down to make everything sound the same.
For those that need that...have at it!

Perhaps the most humorous comment is that:
"...negotiation between subjects is allowed...".

Jeez, what was the purpose of the session? To arrive at a conclusion
that won't vary in the next session? The "real world" is not a factor
in this scenario. Do I detect an agenda, one that almost always
clouds up reality? Then it is announced as a "test" that can be
quoted in a browbeating manner?
Happens on this forum all the time!

Forget any ideas about "numericalizing" a social listening session or
getting the same results over two sessions. Forget about setting
unrealistic rules to tilt the results toward your view of the audio
Universe.

I repeat...one cannot allow for all the variables in each individuals
"ear-brain" construct. You're chasing
"hot air" to think that somehow one can force a
listening session to adhere to some agenda that takes on an evangelist
like quality. Then, go about quoting the results as a "test" that
renders strength to your agenda. This will not work out here in the
"real world"...one with this problem will have to gain sympathy from
others of like persuasion...it is not in these newsgroups.

Don't think this happens? Think about it. Try it yourself.
(It is a given that the scenario painted above will give
some kind of expected results...if not, badgering will occur until
something preferred comes around..so what's new??)

Yes, this happens...but one cannot fix all the sins you read into the
lax rules...and, neither you or I have the answer with all the
uncontrolled variables of the ear-brain constructs interpretations. Do
try to enjoy the music...this evangelism in the Audio Domain
seems a bit "out of place"...don't you think?

To summarize...to attempt to isolate functions of your
mental process to resolve an imagined problem in sitting in your own
quiet listening space seems to drift into the realm of illogic. It
also drifts into the problem area of "semantics"...ad infinitum. For
instance ask 5 people what the meaning of "bias" is...note all the
variables attributed to it. Who, in their right mind, wants to tread
into this bottomless pit??

Leonard...

P.S. A technique that seems to produce some results is as follows:

A friend took a group of cables to a neighbors home and suggested
that opinions be given about each cable...no cable names were given.
Just a simple.." what do you think about this one." Then some
suggested certain comparisons be made. No one knew what "brand
names" were in the group of cables...just #1 thru #5. Out of this
there was a general opinon that #2 was somewhat different in a
rather pleasant manner. Some of the cables came from the mid-90's.

The same session was held a few months later...the
results were different. Case closed. Everyone left content with
the fact that there are variables out there we do not have a
handle on yet. We all left quite content that we didn't know the
answer...but, we enjoyed it all..and went home and turned on our
systems and made mental comparisons. We all knew there would be
nothing definitive reached from the session...but we did hear an
interesting cable or two and had some good audio chatter. No
regimen
here...no agenda..just curiosity to listen to varying cable
characteristics. A good time was had by all. Some new CD's were
played...the music was good... ..that is what this Audio domain is
all about.

Above all..there was an endearing respect for each individual's
opinion..and some decent wine at the end of the session. Note also,
there was no one there telling anyone what they did or didn't hear.
A pleasant situation. Oh yes, at that time we were listening on a
fairly new Panasonic S55 (Number?) that cost around $129. This
merely confirms that these devices are reaching the "commodity"
level. All the more interesting is that it played about every format
on this Earth and seemed quite good at it. (See the a thread now
running here, I think...about
this Panasonic model)