In article 5G5Qa.45253$OZ2.8291@rwcrnsc54,
(S888Wheel) writes:
Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
music. Is it or isn't it?"

Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
differences between amps.

OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.

Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
music. Is it or isn't it?"

I said


Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
differences between amps.


OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.



Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that fact is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

In article ,
(S888Wheel) writes:
Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
music. Is it or isn't it?"

I said


Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
differences between amps.


OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.



Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that fact is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

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.

Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
music. Is it or isn't it?"

I said


Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
differences between amps.


OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.



Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never
an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that fact
is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

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.






Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music. Many people including myself prefer to listen in the dark
so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
isolating the influences of other senses for the purpose of testing perception
of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we live
most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
unexpected effects.

S888Wheel wrote:
Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
music. Is it or isn't it?"

I said


Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of sonic
differences between amps.


OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.



Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never
an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that fact
is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

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.






Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music.

Indeed. It will tend to introduce error into our perceptions of audible
difference. This is well-known.

--
-S.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
In article ,
(S888Wheel) writes:
Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
music. Is it or isn't it?"

I said


Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of
sonic
differences between amps.


OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.



Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
never an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
fact is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

"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?

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?

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

ludovic mirabel wrote:

Define "non-personally", "scientifically", please the "artistic
qualities" that some virtuoso lack.

What for? Would your taunting be more amusing if it was more or less
transparent? Do you even have a point here that others can understand or care
to address?

And don't rest there. Tackle the
relevance of chirping crickets to your definition.

I never said anything about chirping crickets. Please be more careful who
you quote.

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
In article ,
(S888Wheel) writes:
Now answer the part you so conveniently snipped (which you often
decry when others do it) "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge
is whether sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of
music. Is it or isn't it?"

I said


Definitely not. However that fact is not relevant to the issue of
sonic
differences between amps.


OK, sound isn't the only mechanism, nor is it relevant, please go on.



Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
never an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
fact is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

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.

You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
disagree.

How about you, agree or disagree.

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.

Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.

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. 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.

Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
performing DBTs? Please let us know.

This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and determine
its impact as "music".

Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.

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.

Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.

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.

ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
invalidates any previous tests.

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.

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.

Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.

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.
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.

Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
believe I've shown is not valid.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...
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.

Hmmm, I smell a bad analogy coming on...

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".

Actually, you probably couldn't, unless one of the systems was
grotesquely bad. That's why ABX and ABC/hr tests NEVER ask subjects to
compare a sound to something they've remembered. ALL comparison sounds
are immediately available. And that's why this analogy is wrong.

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.

Let's keep in mind this concern of Harry's about what sounds most
"real," because he stumbles over it later on.

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. 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.

I think you're stepping a bit beyond Oohashi's findings here, Harry,
and you really don't need to to make your point.

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.

Oohashi also says that the subjects were not consciously aware of the
difference, so it's a little hard to see the connection between his
results and subjectivist claims.

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.

I don't think so, Harry. What they did was to do ABX-type tests using
short snippets of the music they were using, and found no difference.
So far as I can see, however, they did not use short snippets in their
monadic ratings.

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.

Huge leaps here. First, as I just noted, they don't seem to have done
the key comparison, which is applying the same test to both long and
short snippets. (That's not a criticism of them, by the way. You're
the one who's trying to make more of this research than is really
there.)

Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
is it?

Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
challenging only their methodologies.

Finally, I would note that Oohashi provides absolutely no evidence
that his subjects could tell which of the two samples was closer to
"real." One might interpret his results to suggest that they found one
more appealing than the other, but even that is hard given the lack of
data. For that matter, they have not excluded the possibility that the
inclusion of ultra-high-frequency noise, as opposed to harmonic
information, might be responsible for their results, or cause similar
ones.

In short, I'd say this study is interesting, and opens up some
possibilities that need to be explored more fully. But as I've made
clear before, I'm no expert in this field, so I'd defer to the
opinions of those who are. I recommend you do the same, Harry.

bob

(Audio Guy) wrote:

.....snips for relevant content only ......

"Harry Lavo" writes:

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.

But Music as an art form can be evaluated and interpreted without sound at all.
People who are truly interested in the Music can often appreciate same through
sheet music. One can appreciate the arrangement of the band before they play a
single note.

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.

Disregarding that Harry hasn't given us a reference for this assertion I think
there's an even more important issue here. To evaluate the sound quality
throughput of a given audio reproduction system the "music" can get in the way.
There are some programs that are so beautiful or so easy to portray that they
sound good on ANY system.

There are some programs to which a subject may have such a deep emotional
attachment that it interferes with him/her giving a response more closely
related to the program than the sound system.

That's one of the reasons that pink noise and test tones are often far more
sensitive to real differences in sound quality than music .... because they
have no 'content' other than pure sound. And, in the case of pink noise, cover
the entire audible spectrum all at once thereby greatly increasing human
sensitivity to the 'sound' and not other factors.

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist.

That is a major point. Give a listener the same sound twice and you'll get
differing responses a majority of the time. In uncontrolled listening you often
have no idea of whether the differences reported are due to the sound quality
or some other cause.

Bob Marcus wrote:
Actually, you probably couldn't, unless one of the systems was
grotesquely bad. That's why ABX and ABC/hr tests NEVER ask subjects to
compare a sound to something they've remembered. ALL comparison sounds
are immediately available. And that's why this analogy is wrong.

Well, technically, you are still being asked to compare a sound to
something remembered, albeit recently heard and immediately available for
rehearing. ABX etc never ask subjects to compare a sound to something
that isn't still available for serial comparison...you can always
'refresh' your memory.

I said


Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was never
an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
fact
is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

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.

I said

Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music. Many people including myself prefer to listen in the
dark
so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
isolating the influences of other senses
for the purpose of testing perception
of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we
live
most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
unexpected effects.

Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
than music, one of the points that seems to
vex Elmir in his highly
repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".

This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.


And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
test would affect one in a different manner.


I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see no
reason to think it would.

"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!

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(Audio Guy) wrote:

....snips for relevant content only ......

"Harry Lavo" writes:

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.

But Music as an art form can be evaluated and interpreted without sound at
all.
People who are truly interested in the Music can often appreciate same
through
sheet music. One can appreciate the arrangement of the band before they
play a
single note.

And what the hell does this have to do with evaluating components?


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.

Disregarding that Harry hasn't given us a reference for this assertion I
think
there's an even more important issue here. To evaluate the sound quality
throughput of a given audio reproduction system the "music" can get in the
way.
There are some programs that are so beautiful or so easy to portray that
they
sound good on ANY system.

There are some programs to which a subject may have such a deep emotional
attachment that it interferes with him/her giving a response more closely
related to the program than the sound system.

That's one of the reasons that pink noise and test tones are often far
more
sensitive to real differences in sound quality than music .... because
they
have no 'content' other than pure sound. And, in the case of pink noise,
cover
the entire audible spectrum all at once thereby greatly increasing human
sensitivity to the 'sound' and not other factors.


I am sure most audiophiles use a series of musical recordings that highlight
different aspects that are meaningful to them in evaluating reproduction.
If "beatiful music" sounds good on everything, then that is not likely to be
chosen as a discriminating piece now, is it?

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist.

That is a major point. Give a listener the same sound twice and you'll get
differing responses a majority of the time. In uncontrolled listening you
often
have no idea of whether the differences reported are due to the sound
quality
or some other cause.

Would you care to cite the articles documenting this, Tom, assuming that
there are some and that they have the necessary methodological rigor to
isolate true randomness from perceptual "noise"? And would you care to once
again review and absorb Chris's work on the "transient" nature of barely
audible artifacts. Why would you expect sighted listeing to be 100%
consistent when you don't even expect that in dbt'ng?

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:blBQa.60322$H17.19111@sccrnsc02...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
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.

Hmmm, I smell a bad analogy coming on...

Always at your service to amuse and please, sir............


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".

Actually, you probably couldn't, unless one of the systems was
grotesquely bad. That's why ABX and ABC/hr tests NEVER ask subjects to
compare a sound to something they've remembered. ALL comparison sounds
are immediately available. And that's why this analogy is wrong.


Ever been 50 yards from a car crash. I have been, twice. Their are
elements of the sound you are not likely to forget (burned in by trauma, no
doubt, and also pretty unique among everyday sounds). Morever, these
elements are not likely to be handled well by many systems (dynamic
response, high frequency transients, low frequeny power). I suspect I could
make a judgement.

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.

Let's keep in mind this concern of Harry's about what sounds most
"real," because he stumbles over it later on.

No, lets keep the focus on what this means; if the brain is trying hard to
make sense out of something other than intepresting the musical reproduction
"as music" then it is likely to botch the job of evaluating/identifying the
musical significance of what it is hearing. Like perhaps focusing on
"difference" and using relatively short excerpts, rather than more relaxed
monadic evaluation.


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. 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.

I think you're stepping a bit beyond Oohashi's findings here, Harry,
and you really don't need to to make your point.

Oohashi himself made this same speculation. But the advances in scientific
investigation of human response to music are apparently real and documented.


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.

Oohashi also says that the subjects were not consciously aware of the
difference, so it's a little hard to see the connection between his
results and subjectivist claims.


Not at all. Subjectivists have all along stressed that fact that "test
anxiety" alone may interfere, and have argued that the best test is the
serial monadic approach, ie relaxing and listening to set pieces on
equipment in a familiar system, in familiar surrounds. Then doing the same
with an alternative piece of gear. Taking notes on both. Going back and
repeating, but in a relaxed fashion which still enjoying the music. Taking
careful note on the emotional responses (or lack thereof) and rythmic
responses (or lack thereof) elicited by the DUTs. And finally have a clear
preference emerge and 'reasons why" in musical terms. Very, very close to
what Ooashi et al did but they did it even better in that it was a blind
test and the subjects didn't know much of anything. And yet what emerged
was statistical significant results in favor of one variable.

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.

I don't think so, Harry. What they did was to do ABX-type tests using
short snippets of the music they were using, and found no difference.
So far as I can see, however, they did not use short snippets in their
monadic ratings.


You are absolutely right...but that is my point. Most of the objections
raised in this forum have been to the heavily promoted use of abx testing
and the supporting claim that it is the most sensitive test for evaluation
and shows no differences in most cases in audio gear (speakers and
cartridges excepted). Subjectivists feel there are much better ways of
testing that focus more naturally and fully on musical evaluation and
believe that if differences in preference occur, the fact that there has to
be a difference in some factor of reproduction is a given. Not all
subjectivists here are anti-dbt. Most are anti-abx, it seems to me.

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.

Huge leaps here. First, as I just noted, they don't seem to have done
the key comparison, which is applying the same test to both long and
short snippets. (That's not a criticism of them, by the way. You're
the one who's trying to make more of this research than is really
there.)


I agree from the standpoint of methodological rigor. However, in the real
world a comparison of blind protomonadic testing using full samples of
music, vs. one that apes a standard abx test with shorter snippets, and
which consequentially shows the former to give statistically significant
results of preference (and therefore difference) while the other shows the
accepted "null hypothesis" is highly significant. It suggests that critics
of abx testing "as practiced" appear to be more right than wrong.

Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
is it?


The summary tables are there, but not the individual results. However, the
statistics are so overwhelmingly significant that it is probably less
critical than if the results were marginal. I would guess that Oahashi et
al would provide the raw data to critics and other researchers if asked; my
impression is that most journal articles do not provide the raw data from
such research but instead provide relevant summary statistics as they have
done.

Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
challenging only their methodologies.


It certainly was an excellent approach, IMO. I don't think you would find
many subjectivists objecting to this type of dbt'ng. It is, as noted, a
more rigorous approach to what many already do.

Finally, I would note that Oohashi provides absolutely no evidence
that his subjects could tell which of the two samples was closer to
"real." One might interpret his results to suggest that they found one
more appealing than the other, but even that is hard given the lack of
data. For that matter, they have not excluded the possibility that the
inclusion of ultra-high-frequency noise, as opposed to harmonic
information, might be responsible for their results, or cause similar
ones.


I won't dispute the fact that "real" was not the evaluative criteria here.
My focus on "real" is a) one part for accuracy (after all I was raised in a
"hi-fi" family), and 2) one part reproduction of a live musical event. The
assumption is that most of us listen to music to feel good, and we tend to
play the kinds of music that we have heard live most often, experiences we
usally have a "pleasure response" to. So for me, the "real-er" a sound is,
the more likely the music performed on my system will give me pleasure. I
do understand your point, but whether "real-ness" or "positive emotional
response" is the evaluative criteria, I believe the brain has an important
role to play that negates the "all we are measuring is sound differences"
simplistic approach to component evaluation.

In short, I'd say this study is interesting, and opens up some
possibilities that need to be explored more fully. But as I've made
clear before, I'm no expert in this field, so I'd defer to the
opinions of those who are. I recommend you do the same, Harry.

bob


Thank you for your thoughtful critique, Bob.

I said


Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music.


Steven said


Indeed. It will tend to introduce error into our perceptions of audible
difference. This is well-known.

--

Really? Seeing the performance will introduce error into our perceptions of
audible idfference? I'd like to see something that supports this assertion.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:%4BQa.59851$Ph3.6265@sccrnsc04...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
In article ,
(S888Wheel) writes:

snip irrelevant to what followsL

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.

You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
disagree.

How about you, agree or disagree.


I don't know what "audio" is as you use it. I know what sound is. I know
what music is. I know what electricity is. I know what vibrations are.
And I know that components are designed to use those elements to deliver a
facsimile of music to our brains.

If this is what you mean by audio, then I agree.

If what your really mean is electrical output (of amps, wires, etc.) then I
disagree at least as conventionally measured and sometimes evaluated.

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.

Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.


See my notes below to Tom

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. 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.

Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
performing DBTs? Please let us know.


You don't even understand what I'm referring to. Suggest you read the
Oohashi article.

This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
determine
its impact as "music".

Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.


Then why are you taking on Ludovic's suggestion that abx in particular is
not the best instrument for evaluation audio components. After all, that is
*all* he has ever really argued.

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.

Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.


Again, read and understand first and then comment, thanks.

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.

ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
invalidates any previous tests.


And if you are intent on hearing differences, as opposed to evaluating music
reproduction, the technique tends to lead you in that direction.

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.


We've all done that...it doesn't mean that all instances of sighted
listening are invalid. That's the logical error you folks make. Your
boolean should should be as follows (and for some here it is):

sighted listening can sometime lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, it is possible that differences are due to factors other than
sound.

Instead, in this newsgroup many tend to use different logic. It tends to go:

signted listening can sometimes lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, almost certainly I am imagining any differences I hear (because
we know better and because what you think you hear can't be possible, etc
etc etc)

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.

Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.


Component evaluations of music reproduction? Documented and subject to a
rigorous methodological evaluation? If so, where? I'd feel a lot better
about the test which a goodly number of such results, as well as null
results. And, BTW, isn't that exactly what Ludovic and "Wheel" have been
requesting?

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.
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.

Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
believe I've shown is not valid.


You've asserted it is not valid, without reading Oohashi et al to understand
the delay mechanism and alternative means of measurement when it comes to
evaluating music.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(Audio Guy) wrote:

....snips for relevant content only ......

"Harry Lavo" writes:

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.

But Music as an art form can be evaluated and interpreted without sound at
all.
People who are truly interested in the Music can often appreciate same
through
sheet music. One can appreciate the arrangement of the band before they
play a
single note.

And what the hell does this have to do with evaluating components?

You're the guy telling us about Music and context and interpretation. I agree,
test signals are far more sensitive even if they deliver subtle differences
that may NEVER be encountered with music programs.

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.

Disregarding that Harry hasn't given us a reference for this assertion I
think
there's an even more important issue here. To evaluate the sound quality
throughput of a given audio reproduction system the "music" can get in the
way.
There are some programs that are so beautiful or so easy to portray that
they
sound good on ANY system.

There are some programs to which a subject may have such a deep emotional
attachment that it interferes with him/her giving a response more closely
related to the program than the sound system.

That's one of the reasons that pink noise and test tones are often far
more
sensitive to real differences in sound quality than music .... because
they
have no 'content' other than pure sound. And, in the case of pink noise,
cover
the entire audible spectrum all at once thereby greatly increasing human
sensitivity to the 'sound' and not other factors.


I am sure most audiophiles use a series of musical recordings that highlight
different aspects that are meaningful to them in evaluating reproduction.

Some, but far from most. Few bother to use the same programs, in the same order
in evaluations that may have a referent that hasn't been heard in months or
years.

If "beatiful music" sounds good on everything, then that is not likely to be
chosen as a discriminating piece now, is it?

I've seen it used many times. I've also seen quite clever merchandising
techniques that use such.

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist.

That is a major point. Give a listener the same sound twice and you'll get
differing responses a majority of the time. In uncontrolled listening you
often
have no idea of whether the differences reported are due to the sound
quality
or some other cause.

Would you care to cite the articles documenting this, Tom, assuming that
there are some and that they have the necessary methodological rigor to
isolate true randomness from perceptual "noise"? And would you care to once
again review and absorb Chris's work on the "transient" nature of barely
audible artifacts. Why would you expect sighted listeing to be 100%
consistent when you don't even expect that in dbt'ng?

But you have no way of knowing whether it's consistent. As for the former try
"Can You Trust Your Ears" (JAES and Stereo Review) and examine the results of
Same/Different protocols found in HFNRR and Stereophile listening tests.

(S888Wheel) wrote:

I said


Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
never
an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
fact
is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

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.

Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the Music"
when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when evaluating
sound quality and realism of reproduction.

I said

Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music.

It also can positively influences the sense of performance-space acoustics.
Seeing the walls often adds greatly to the realism of reproduced performance.
But a large screen is always better.

That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't even
try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the idea
of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been taken
back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
picture helps here as well.

Many people including myself prefer to listen in the
dark
so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
isolating the influences of other senses
for the purpose of testing perception
of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we
live
most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
unexpected effects.

Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
than music, one of the points that seems to
vex Elmir in his highly
repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".

This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

It can also be evaluated from a score.

And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
test would affect one in a different manner.


I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see
no
reason to think it would.

Agreed.

S888Wheel wrote:
I said


Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music.


Steven said


Indeed. It will tend to introduce error into our perceptions of audible
difference. This is well-known.

--

Really? Seeing the performance will introduce error into our perceptions of
audible idfference?

Yes, if the performance is being compared to another one.

I'd like to see something that supports this assertion.

You accept the claim as true for component comparisons, yes?
Why not for performance comparisons, then?

Please read what I wrote again, carefully. I am referring to
determinination of audible *difference*. The principle is generally
true -- it applies whenever sounds are
compared.

In addition to *difference, sighted bias can also influence
which performance/component/treatment 'sounds better', as you
well know. This can occur even when there
is no objective reason to believe one would be 'better'
than the other. I could take two copies the same LP from the
same pressing run, slap an "MFSL" label on one and a generic
label on the other -- wanna bet which one the 'vinylphile'
would claim sounds better in a sighted comparison?

--
-S.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:blBQa.60322$H17.19111@sccrnsc02...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
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.

Hmmm, I smell a bad analogy coming on...

Always at your service to amuse and please, sir............


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".

Actually, you probably couldn't, unless one of the systems was
grotesquely bad. That's why ABX and ABC/hr tests NEVER ask subjects to
compare a sound to something they've remembered. ALL comparison sounds
are immediately available. And that's why this analogy is wrong.


Ever been 50 yards from a car crash. I have been, twice. Their are
elements of the sound you are not likely to forget (burned in by trauma, no
doubt, and also pretty unique among everyday sounds).

Studies indicate that trauma is not a particularly high-fidelity
'burner' of memories.

No, lets keep the focus on what this means; if the brain is trying hard to
make sense out of something other than intepresting the musical reproduction
"as music" then it is likely to botch the job of evaluating/identifying the
musical significance of what it is hearing. Like perhaps focusing on
"difference" and using relatively short excerpts, rather than more relaxed
monadic evaluation.

Not at all. Subjectivists have all along stressed that fact that "test
anxiety" alone may interfere, and have argued that the best test is the
serial monadic approach, ie relaxing and listening to set pieces on
equipment in a familiar system, in familiar surrounds.

Unless they add bias controls to that protocol, they're quite demosntrably
wrong about it being the 'best test', if best is defined as 'most likely
to lead to accurate perception of audible difference'.

Then doing the same
with an alternative piece of gear. Taking notes on both. Going back and
repeating, but in a relaxed fashion which still enjoying the music. Taking
careful note on the emotional responses (or lack thereof) and rythmic
responses (or lack thereof) elicited by the DUTs. And finally have a clear
preference emerge and 'reasons why" in musical terms. Very, very close to
what Ooashi et al did but they did it even better in that it was a blind
test and the subjects didn't know much of anything. And yet what emerged
was statistical significant results in favor of one variable.

And that 'blind test' proviso makes *ALL THE DIFFERENCE*, Harry.
Your 'subjectivist approved' protocol has *no* provisions for
determining error.

You are absolutely right...but that is my point. Most of the objections
raised in this forum have been to the heavily promoted use of abx testing
and the supporting claim that it is the most sensitive test for evaluation
and shows no differences in most cases in audio gear (speakers and
cartridges excepted). Subjectivists feel there are much better ways of
testing that focus more naturally and fully on musical evaluation and
believe that if differences in preference occur, the fact that there has to
be a difference in some factor of reproduction is a given. Not all
subjectivists here are anti-dbt. Most are anti-abx, it seems to me.

This assumes that ABX is inherently a short-interval *listening* protocol.
It's not. It's a quick-*switching* protocol. If subjectivists believe that
sighted perception of audible difference is more accurate when the listener
leaves a long interval between the end of A and the start of B or X, then
subjectivists need to prove *that*. Oohashi's paper doesn't.

Subjectivist belief that preferences difference has to reflect some difference
in some factor of reproduction, is falsified when 'reproduction' refers only
the the actual sounds. Because it's *quite* trivially easy to set up
a test where 'subjectivists' will form preferences for different presentations
of the SAME sounds.

It is demonstrably the case that 'preference' and 'perception of difference'
*can* have NO basis or relation to audible fact.

Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
is it?


The summary tables are there, but not the individual results. However, the
statistics are so overwhelmingly significant that it is probably less
critical than if the results were marginal. I would guess that Oahashi et
al would provide the raw data to critics and other researchers if asked; my
impression is that most journal articles do not provide the raw data from
such research but instead provide relevant summary statistics as they have
done.

Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
challenging only their methodologies.


It certainly was an excellent approach, IMO. I don't think you would find
many subjectivists objecting to this type of dbt'ng. It is, as noted, a
more rigorous approach to what many already do.

I think you would. I have seen many objectivists object to the idea of
controlled comparison, *period*, as somehow interfering with the 'truth'.

--
-S.

Harry Lavo wrote:

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

Those who are interested might wnt to look at the July 1 issue
of NAture Neuroscience, whihc has six reviews of musical perception
from a scientific perspective:

Reviews: Focus on Music

The evolution of the music faculty: a comparative perspective pp 663 - 668
Marc D Hauser & Josh McDermott
doi:10.1038/nn1080

The developmental origins of musicality pp 669 - 673
Sandra E Trehub
doi:10.1038/nn1084
SUPPINFO

Language, music, syntax and the brain pp 674 - 681
Aniruddh D Patel
doi:10.1038/nn1082
SUPPINFO

Swinging in the brain: shared neural substrates for behaviors related to sequencing and music pp 682 - 687
Petr Janata & Scott T Grafton
doi:10.1038/nn1081
SUPPINFO

Modularity of music processing pp 688 - 691
Isabelle Peretz & Max Coltheart
doi:10.1038/nn1083

Absolute pitch: a model for understanding the influence of genes and development on neural and cognitive function pp 692 - 695
Robert J Zatorre
doi:10.1038/nn1085

In article mFEQa.61160$ye4.42517@sccrnsc01,
(S888Wheel) writes:

Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
than music, one of the points that seems to
vex Elmir in his highly
repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".

This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

OK, but how does that apply to the actual subject of the discussion:
audio reproduction devices? And do you feel that only music is the
only valid audio source for the evaluation of audio reproduction
devices?


And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
test would affect one in a different manner.


I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see no
reason to think it would.

Thank you. Then you don't have any objection to the use of DBTs in
the testing of audio reproduction devices it seems.

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:%4BQa.59851$Ph3.6265@sccrnsc04...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
In article ,
(S888Wheel) writes:

snip irrelevant to what followsL

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.

You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
disagree.

How about you, agree or disagree.


I don't know what "audio" is as you use it. I know what sound is. I know
what music is. I know what electricity is. I know what vibrations are.
And I know that components are designed to use those elements to deliver a
facsimile of music to our brains.

If this is what you mean by audio, then I agree.

Yes, and I meant to say "via and audio systems is sound" above.

If what your really mean is electrical output (of amps, wires, etc.) then I
disagree at least as conventionally measured and sometimes evaluated.

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.

Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.


See my notes below to Tom

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. 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.

Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
performing DBTs? Please let us know.


You don't even understand what I'm referring to. Suggest you read the
Oohashi article.

Yes, I do, and I read it back when you first mentioned it, but you
don't want to accept the any ABX or DBT has the requirement of only
using short snippets, I guess it's because it would invalidate many
of your arguments.

This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
determine
its impact as "music".

Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.


Then why are you taking on Ludovic's suggestion that abx in particular is
not the best instrument for evaluation audio components. After all, that is
*all* he has ever really argued.

Because I totally disagree with him, and ABX in particular is
perfectly suited and in fact were created specifically for that
purpose.

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.

Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.


Again, read and understand first and then comment, thanks.

I do and did understand, thank you. You don't seem to understand that
one can listen as long as one wants, days if desired, during an ABX
session to either of A, B, or X during the test before deciding if X
is A or B. If after days of listening to A and B, if one cannot
determine which one X is, than I doubt seriously there is a
difference, at least to you (the one taking the test).

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.

ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
invalidates any previous tests.


And if you are intent on hearing differences, as opposed to evaluating music
reproduction, the technique tends to lead you in that direction.

For one component to be better than another there must be a
difference, how else could it happen? That's the whole point.

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.


We've all done that...it doesn't mean that all instances of sighted
listening are invalid.

Well then you didn't imagine a huge difference then, because that's
what convinced me, I thought I'd heard a very noticeable difference
when nothing at all had changed. As many of the DBT advocates have
mentioned, they were complete believers in the idea that every
component has it's own sound and that by just careful listening you
can determine which his better. But an eye opening event such as the
one I had occurs, and it dawns on you how easily one can be mistaken.

That's the logical error you folks make. Your
boolean should should be as follows (and for some here it is):

sighted listening can sometime lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, it is possible that differences are due to factors other than
sound.

No problem here.

Instead, in this newsgroup many tend to use different logic. It tends to go:

signted listening can sometimes lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, almost certainly I am imagining any differences I hear (because
we know better and because what you think you hear can't be possible, etc
etc etc)

Wrong, it's that it is very possible that I could be imaging a
difference that is not there, so controls are needed if you want to
be sure. If being sure is not a criteria, then do whatever you want.

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.

Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.


Component evaluations of music reproduction? Documented and subject to a
rigorous methodological evaluation? If so, where? I'd feel a lot better
about the test which a goodly number of such results, as well as null
results. And, BTW, isn't that exactly what Ludovic and "Wheel" have been
requesting?

Not that I have, but Nousaine, JJ and others have reported them, and
JJ's in particular also included the sensitivity testing with probe
signals that Wheel has been asking for. But JJ's were not available
to the general public since they were proprietary with the exception
of those very few that were presented at AES conventions.

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.
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.

Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
believe I've shown is not valid.


You've asserted it is not valid, without reading Oohashi et al to understand
the delay mechanism and alternative means of measurement when it comes to
evaluating music.

Since your main point seems to be that short snippets aren't any good
for evalutaing components, but they aren't a requirement at all, so
then please explain.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:tlHQa.62400$Ph3.6659@sccrnsc04...
Harry Lavo wrote:

snip, no longer relevant to discussion below

Studies indicate that trauma is not a particularly high-fidelity
'burner' of memories.


Interesting. Do you have references i could pursue?

No, lets keep the focus on what this means; if the brain is trying hard
to
make sense out of something other than intepresting the musical
reproduction
"as music" then it is likely to botch the job of evaluating/identifying
the
musical significance of what it is hearing. Like perhaps focusing on
"difference" and using relatively short excerpts, rather than more
relaxed
monadic evaluation.

Not at all. Subjectivists have all along stressed that fact that "test
anxiety" alone may interfere, and have argued that the best test is the
serial monadic approach, ie relaxing and listening to set pieces on
equipment in a familiar system, in familiar surrounds.

Unless they add bias controls to that protocol, they're quite demosntrably
wrong about it being the 'best test', if best is defined as 'most likely
to lead to accurate perception of audible difference'.

No, they simply feel that the biases that intrude are more than offset by
the biases excluded by eliminating a "comparative" setting, especially if we
are talking abx and looking for "differences" rather than listening to
music. And by repeatedly listening, then listening again and taking notes,
over a variety of moods, times, and musical pieces they are able to offset
many of the transitory influences.


Then doing the same
with an alternative piece of gear. Taking notes on both. Going back and
repeating, but in a relaxed fashion which still enjoying the music.
Taking
careful note on the emotional responses (or lack thereof) and rythmic
responses (or lack thereof) elicited by the DUTs. And finally have a
clear
preference emerge and 'reasons why" in musical terms. Very, very close
to
what Ooashi et al did but they did it even better in that it was a blind
test and the subjects didn't know much of anything. And yet what
emerged
was statistical significant results in favor of one variable.

And that 'blind test' proviso makes *ALL THE DIFFERENCE*, Harry.
Your 'subjectivist approved' protocol has *no* provisions for
determining error.


If I could I would do it blind exactly as Ooahi did. But given that I can't
replicate that setting blind, I would for myself choose it sighted over
attempting to use abx to choose. I believe I'd get a better reading to make
a judgement on. You may be different.

You are absolutely right...but that is my point. Most of the objections
raised in this forum have been to the heavily promoted use of abx
testing
and the supporting claim that it is the most sensitive test for
evaluation
and shows no differences in most cases in audio gear (speakers and
cartridges excepted). Subjectivists feel there are much better ways of
testing that focus more naturally and fully on musical evaluation and
believe that if differences in preference occur, the fact that there has
to
be a difference in some factor of reproduction is a given. Not all
subjectivists here are anti-dbt. Most are anti-abx, it seems to me.

This assumes that ABX is inherently a short-interval *listening* protocol.
It's not. It's a quick-*switching* protocol. If subjectivists believe
that
sighted perception of audible difference is more accurate when the
listener
leaves a long interval between the end of A and the start of B or X, then
subjectivists need to prove *that*. Oohashi's paper doesn't.


They don't believe you need a long interval between. It is not
quick-switching per se that is the problem. It is not letting the
evaluation be of a whole piece of music, paying attention to what the musice
"does to us" and rating it on that basis, rather than trying to determin if
x matches a, or x matches b...that matters. they believe that you have to
listen to the music and allow the music time to create the emotional
response in order to get a true evaluation. that is why "snippets" do not
work for music, even if they work in detecting articfacts.

Subjectivist belief that preferences difference has to reflect some
difference
in some factor of reproduction, is falsified when 'reproduction' refers
only
the the actual sounds. Because it's *quite* trivially easy to set up
a test where 'subjectivists' will form preferences for different
presentations
of the SAME sounds.

It is demonstrably the case that 'preference' and 'perception of
difference'
*can* have NO basis or relation to audible fact.


Yes, but that doesn't mean when they do hear a difference that it is *not*
real. You are making an error of logic.

Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
is it?


The summary tables are there, but not the individual results. However,
the
statistics are so overwhelmingly significant that it is probably less
critical than if the results were marginal. I would guess that Oahashi
et
al would provide the raw data to critics and other researchers if asked;
my
impression is that most journal articles do not provide the raw data
from
such research but instead provide relevant summary statistics as they
have
done.

Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
challenging only their methodologies.


It certainly was an excellent approach, IMO. I don't think you would
find
many subjectivists objecting to this type of dbt'ng. It is, as noted, a
more rigorous approach to what many already do.

I think you would. I have seen many objectivists object to the idea of
controlled comparison, *period*, as somehow interfering with the 'truth'.


Well, I've been a member of this group (and others) for a long time and I
have not heard many object to blind testing per se....but they do object to
tests that "get in the way" vs admittedly less than perfect sighted tests
that "get out of the way". The Ooashi et al tests are so "out of the way"
that they subjects hardly know there are tests going on. And if
"Objectivists United" wishes to fund a permanent testing facility as
sophisticated as what Ooashi et al set up, then I for one would be happy to
use it for all my auditioning choices. And I am sure I would not be alone.

I said


Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music.



Steven said


Indeed. It will tend to introduce error into our perceptions of audible
difference. This is well-known.


I said


Really? Seeing the performance will introduce error into our perceptions of
audible idfference?

Steven said


Yes, if the performance is being compared to another one.

How do you know? What do you base this claim on?

I said


I'd like to see something that supports this assertion.

Steven said


You accept the claim as true for component comparisons, yes?
Why not for performance comparisons, then?

This makes no sense in the context of my claim that seeing a performance while
hearing it matters in our perception of the music. If you have some knowledge
that watching playback of the permormance while comparing the sound of that
same playback obscures our ability to hear differences in components you are
just speculating. Hey maybe it's true but without a test of some sort you are
just speculating.

Steven said


Please read what I wrote again, carefully. I am referring to
determinination of audible *difference*. The principle is generally
true -- it applies whenever sounds are
compared.

Yeah, I thought it was an odd reply to my post regarding the effects of seeing
music performed while hearing it performed. But if you think seeing the
performance while hearing the performance during playback dulls our ability to
hear differences you might want to test that idea before claiming it is true.

Steven said

In addition to *difference, sighted bias can also influence
which performance/component/treatment 'sounds better', as you
well know. This can occur even when there
is no objective reason to believe one would be 'better'
than the other.

OK we are talking apples and oranges. I'm not talking about seeing the
equipment perform. I am talking about seeing the musicians perform, be it live
or playback.

Steven said

I could take two copies the same LP from the
same pressing run, slap an "MFSL" label on one and a generic
label on the other -- wanna bet which one the 'vinylphile'
would claim sounds better in a sighted comparison?


You are welcome to try that with me. I will take your bet and your money. Keep
in mind though that different records from the same stampers can and often will
sound slightly to significantly different depending on how many pressings come
from those stampers.

Audioguy said


Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
than music, one of the points that seems to
vex Elmir in his highly
repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".

I said


This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of
music

IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

Audioguy said


OK, but how does that apply to the actual subject of the discussion:
audio reproduction devices? And do you feel that only music is the
only valid audio source for the evaluation of audio reproduction
devices?

It doesn't. Remeber I said the answer I gave was irrelevant to the issue of the
sound of components?

Audioguy said



And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
test would affect one in a different manner.

I said


I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I
see no
reason to think it would.

Audioguy said


Thank you. Then you don't have any objection to the use of DBTs in
the testing of audio reproduction devices it seems.


Not at all.

I said


Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
never
an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
fact
is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

Audioguy said


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.


Tom said


Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the Music"
when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when evaluating
sound quality and realism of reproduction.


Good lord why use this as an opportunity to take cheap shots at me. A question
was asked and I answered it. Do you disagree with my answer? My view on amps
are irrelevant to the question asked and the answer given. By the way, for some
of us it is all about the music. You cannot have music without sound. The
quality of sound affects our enjoyment of the music, at least for some of us.


I said

Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music.


Tom said


It also can positively influences the sense of performance-space acoustics.
Seeing the walls often adds greatly to the realism of reproduced performance.
But a large screen is always better.



That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't
even
try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the
idea
of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been taken
back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
picture helps here as well.

The sound guys on set do their best within the limitations of the situation to
get the most accurate sound of the actor's voices as possible. they have no
interest in getting ambient sound except for the sake of sonic continuity. The
ambient sound is often completely wrong since the sound of a set on a
soundstage is nothing like the sound of the space the film makers are trying to
fool you into believing is real. The sound guys on set have nothing to do with
the final soundtrack except only to deliver the recording of the dialogue and
enough of a guide track to allow the foley artists to create all the incidental
sounds. Movie soundtracks cannot be judged for realism anymore than the image
of the film can be judged for realism. Otherwise we would have people and
places constantly changing size and position as the editor chooses. What does a
person with a sixty foot head sound like when he or she talks? Movie goers are
aware of the stylized format of film and live with it's lack of realism. That
is the advantage filmmakers have over music recordists and music playback. It
does seem that the combination of sight and sound does help suspend disbelief
but I don't think film goers even ask the question "did that look or sound like
real life?" They may ask if a visual effect looked like something real caught
on film but I think that is as far as it goes. The unrealistic intrinsic
stylization of film is simply accepted by the film goers.

I said

Many people including myself prefer to listen in the
dark
so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
isolating the influences of other senses
for the purpose of testing perception
of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we
live

most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
unexpected effects.


Audioguy said

Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
than music, one of the points that seems
to
vex Elmir in his highly
repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".


I said

This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of
music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

Tom said


It can also be evaluated from a score.

Nah. One can anticipate what it will sound like from reading the music and one
can evaluate that anticipation, but without the music being played you don't
have music. Sheet music is as much music as a blueprint is a finished building.
They both tell you what to do more or less and some skilled people can
speculate quite accurately on it's merits but there are no real merits when all
is said and done if there is no performance of the music written on the sheet
or a building incarnate. All of which is irrelevant to my point that seeing
performers play the music is another mechanism for the delivery of music.

Audioguy said


And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
test would affect one in a different manner.

I said


I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see
no
reason to think it would.

Tom said


Agreed.

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:KIHQa.63015$H17.19512@sccrnsc02...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:%4BQa.59851$Ph3.6265@sccrnsc04...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
In article ,
(S888Wheel) writes:

I can't match Harry Lavo's erudite comments. I can add only, (as
an anecdote, because I read it in a newspaper aricle which did not
quote the source) this interesting report from Montreal.
A patient had a minor stroke with seemingly complete function
recovery: he could walk ,hear, understand and talk but he could no
longer sing, whistle or recognise a tune. The music computer in the
brain was gone.
Your ideas strike me as so, let's say, unusual that I cannot but ask
myself if I understand you correctly. But here is Nousaine saying
pretty much the same so you two must be serious. Apparently you think
that any kind of sound can be used to test differences between
components.
You're absolutely right. Anyone can do anything. It is a free country,
right?
If you're interested in how your system will render train whistles you
check the components by ABX for how they reproduce differences between
train whistles, ditto for cannon shots, ditto for MGM lion roar, ditto
for pink noises, ditto for music if you're interested in music.
Can you draw any conclusions from the pink noise performance about the
music performance? A hundred dollar question; you have to offer that
little thing called *experimental evidence* that that is the case. So
far the only evidence I have is to the contrary. You guessed it :the
famous Marcus Ovchain 1,76 db test which showed that most people
performed ABX much better when pink noise was played to them than when
they had to listen to music.
As for the positive outcomes of ABX component comparison I'd like to
see the day when people who like to be seen as scientists stop quoting
fantasies. The challenge to give a PRECISE reference to a listening
panel, comparing electrically comparable (roughly) components with a
final POSITIVE outcome conclusion by the test proctors, was repeated
by me at least a dozen time here , in RAHE. With no response or
barefaced claims that there are "many". Or urban legends about JJ.
etc.
No ,one responded because NO SUCH POSITIVE REPORTS EXIST. The majority
vote that the proctors (idiotically in my far from modest opinion)
take as vox populi, vox dei is always"They all sound the same". (Let
alone that no such tests, positive or negative have been published
since 1990).
You quote Nousaine: he unkindly contradicts you in the same thread
ridiculing "cable and amplifier sound" and denying any positives. As
for JJ.
I had extensive discussion with him, here in RAHE. No mention to
secret, nondisclosable comparisons- just once he mentioned his
recollections of a nonpublished test. Period.
Speakers? I suggested that energetic people organise a panel ABX
comparison of good full rtange speaker and bet that the majoority will
again have a NULL, NEGATIVE result because such is the nature of the
ABX beast ("How to get a positive ABX test?" thread. The challenge so
far was not taken up- not even by H_K who have facilities for dpeaker
moving etc.
I am sorry if I ssound impatient. I am. This very exchange has been
repeated here again and again- and every time one gets anecdotes from
people claiming to be scientists.
I'll leave aside the obvious problem of "testing" wildly different
individuals and ignoring the gifted monority- did you notice that
what makes outstanding performance outstanding is that it stand out
above the crowd?
I never thought that claim that the "test" when applied to the
generality of audiophiles of various ages, abilities, training,
musical experience etc. could produce any result other than NULL, ZERO
was anything more than a bad joke like astrology column in a
newspaper. But I can't help but feel compassion for such as Mr. Wheel
who appears genuinely to be searching for his Land of Oz only to find
perpetually that the Wizard is a fake. There ain't no "test" for
everybody. Cover up the brand names if you're worried and most will
have a better chance of getting something of signicance for them than
when performing mental ABX question and answer gymnastics.
Ludovic Mirabel

snip irrelevant to what followsL

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.

You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
disagree.

I agree dear man, I totally agree. And the delivery of speech is also
via "audio" ie sounds. Not much help if I deliver those sounds to a
native of Kalahari desert, His brain is not wired this way. And the
brain of a heavy metal fan is not wired for cellos either.

How about you, agree or disagree.


I don't know what "audio" is as you use it. I know what sound is. I know
what music is. I know what electricity is. I know what vibrations are.
And I know that components are designed to use those elements to deliver a
facsimile of music to our brains.

If this is what you mean by audio, then I agree.

Yes, and I meant to say "via and audio systems is sound" above.

If what your really mean is electrical output (of amps, wires, etc.) then I
disagree at least as conventionally measured and sometimes evaluated.

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.

Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.


See my notes below to Tom

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. 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.

Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
performing DBTs? Please let us know.


You don't even understand what I'm referring to. Suggest you read the
Oohashi article.

Yes, I do, and I read it back when you first mentioned it, but you
don't want to accept the any ABX or DBT has the requirement of only
using short snippets, I guess it's because it would invalidate many
of your arguments.

This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
determine
its impact as "music".

Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.


Then why are you taking on Ludovic's suggestion that abx in particular is
not the best instrument for evaluation audio components. After all, that is
*all* he has ever really argued.

Because I totally disagree with him, and ABX in particular is
perfectly suited and in fact were created specifically for that
purpose.

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.

Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.


Again, read and understand first and then comment, thanks.

I do and did understand, thank you. You don't seem to understand that
one can listen as long as one wants, days if desired, during an ABX
session to either of A, B, or X during the test before deciding if X
is A or B. If after days of listening to A and B, if one cannot
determine which one X is, than I doubt seriously there is a
difference, at least to you (the one taking the test).

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.

ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
invalidates any previous tests.


And if you are intent on hearing differences, as opposed to evaluating music
reproduction, the technique tends to lead you in that direction.

For one component to be better than another there must be a
difference, how else could it happen? That's the whole point.

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.


We've all done that...it doesn't mean that all instances of sighted
listening are invalid.

Well then you didn't imagine a huge difference then, because that's
what convinced me, I thought I'd heard a very noticeable difference
when nothing at all had changed. As many of the DBT advocates have
mentioned, they were complete believers in the idea that every
component has it's own sound and that by just careful listening you
can determine which his better. But an eye opening event such as the
one I had occurs, and it dawns on you how easily one can be mistaken.

That's the logical error you folks make. Your
boolean should should be as follows (and for some here it is):

sighted listening can sometime lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, it is possible that differences are due to factors other than
sound.

No problem here.

Instead, in this newsgroup many tend to use different logic. It tends to go:

signted listening can sometimes lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, almost certainly I am imagining any differences I hear (because
we know better and because what you think you hear can't be possible, etc
etc etc)

Wrong, it's that it is very possible that I could be imaging a
difference that is not there, so controls are needed if you want to
be sure. If being sure is not a criteria, then do whatever you want.

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.

Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.


Component evaluations of music reproduction? Documented and subject to a
rigorous methodological evaluation? If so, where? I'd feel a lot better
about the test which a goodly number of such results, as well as null
results. And, BTW, isn't that exactly what Ludovic and "Wheel" have been
requesting?

Not that I have, but Nousaine, JJ and others have reported them, and
JJ's in particular also included the sensitivity testing with probe
signals that Wheel has been asking for. But JJ's were not available
to the general public since they were proprietary with the exception
of those very few that were presented at AES conventions.

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.
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.

Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
believe I've shown is not valid.


You've asserted it is not valid, without reading Oohashi et al to understand
the delay mechanism and alternative means of measurement when it comes to
evaluating music.

Since your main point seems to be that short snippets aren't any good
for evalutaing components, but they aren't a requirement at all, so
then please explain.

Tom said


Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the
Music"
when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when
evaluating
sound quality and realism of reproduction.

I said

Good lord why use this as an opportunity to take cheap shots at me. A
question
was asked and I answered it. Do you disagree with my answer? My view on amps
are irrelevant to the question asked and the answer given. By the way, for
some
of us it is all about the music. You cannot have music without sound. The
quality of sound affects our enjoyment of the music, at least for some of
us.

Tom said


Sure, but why is the only 'sound' that counts music? There are plenty of
other
sources that are enjoyable and useful. Many where 'realism' is the only goal.


If you want to listen to sounds other than music on your stereo more power to
you. My stereo was aquired for listening to music. You did see the part where I
said 'some of us' didn't you?

Tom said

That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't
even
try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the
idea
of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been
taken
back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
picture helps here as well.

I said


The sound guys on set do their best within the limitations of the situation
to
get the most accurate sound of the actor's voices as possible.

Tom said


No they don't. The actual 'voices' you hear in the film are mostly ADR.


Yes they do regardless of how much ADR is used. The more accurate the guide
track the better an actor can recreate their pefromance.The goal always being
to avoid ADR as much as possible.

I said

they have no
interest in getting ambient sound except for the sake of sonic continuity.
The
ambient sound is often completely wrong since the sound of a set on a
soundstage is nothing like the sound of the space the film makers are trying
to
fool you into believing is real.


Tom said


That's right the fans that make the wind would often drown out the dialog
completely. Those camera trolleys aren't silent either.

Dollies as we call the trolleys are pretty quite most of the time, fans are
terrible. Motion control rigs are very noisy. Crews are also pretty bad
sometimes. Footsteps are a huge problem much of the time.

I said


The sound guys on set have nothing to do
with
the final soundtrack except only to deliver the recording of the dialogue
and
enough of a guide track to allow the foley artists to create all the
incidental
sounds.

Tom said


That's mostly right except the dialogue is usually done later in ADR.


The amount of ADR varies from show to show.

I said


Movie soundtracks cannot be judged for realism anymore than the image
of the film can be judged for realism.


Tom said


Sure they can. Some of them do a great job of taking you to a different place
and making you suspend disbelief for a period.


Only within the context of a stulized format. A good book can do the same thing
with no soundtrack. No one confuses the movies with actual events, unless they
saw the first segment of one of the early demos of Showscan. that demo was
intended to fool the audience for the first 30 seconds or so.

Tom said


Image not realistic? Why do they have those Oscars for Cimematography?

For the artistry of the photography. definitely not for the degree of realism.

I said


Otherwise we would have people and
places constantly changing size and position as the editor chooses. What
does
a
person with a sixty foot head sound like when he or she talks? Movie goers
are
aware of the stylized format of film and live with it's lack of realism.

Tom said


Film is the single best medium for suspension of disbelief. It gives the most
"real" impression of being taken to somewhere else.

It is one of the best mediums for a narrative but no one is fooled by film.
There are some good motion control flight simulators that use large format film
that take the illusion much further but even those don't fool anyone I know of
at all.

Tom said

There are some concert
films/soundtracks that do this pretty well too but as you say often the
camera
work is too frenetic to seem real-enough.

The format of film as we are acustomed to it is not geared toward realism. It
is geared towards comunicating the narative. moving in for close ups while
cutting back and forth between actors will prevent any illusion of the film
being real but it will do a better job of telling the story. the common break
up of real time is another stylized convention of film that we accept without
question. It is another obvious que that we are not watching actual events in
the flesh.

Tom said


OTOH many movies take you there very effectively. I just got back from Banff
near the place where Legends of the Fall was fimed. That film in image takes
me
there very effectively. The camera angles that I could never get in real life
take me there in a way that could be described as better-than-real from a
visual perspective.

It may take you there but only because you are acustomed to the convention of
film as a narrative medium. If someone were to ask an audience to pay attention
to the realism of a film, that is to say how well does the film fool you into
thinking it is an actual event incarnate taking place before your eyes and ears
they probably wouldn't even undersatnd what you were asking. The format is that
far removed from a recreation of a real event. And so it should be. Movies tell
stories they don't try to recreate a real event. That is what the state of the
art motion control rides are trying to do. I think they have a ways to go.

I said


That
is the advantage filmmakers have over music recordists and music playback.
It
does seem that the combination of sight and sound does help suspend
disbelief
but I don't think film goers even ask the question "did that look or sound
like
real life?"

Tom said


Of course not. That's the idea to take "you" there in a way that could never
happen in real life. But, when it get the subject to suspend disbelief for
the
length of performance than its successful.


Yes, the same way a good book can take yo away.

Tom said


If a 'realistic' feel weren't necessary than we'd not need a large screen, a
darkened room and natural enveloping sound.

Large screens are great for impact but they don't make anything more realistic.
I sixty foot talking disembodied head is not more realistic than a thirty foot
talking disembodied head. It is more impressive sometimes.

I said


They may ask if a visual effect looked like something real caught
on film but I think that is as far as it goes.


Tom said


I don't think that's any different than a concert captured on tape and
transcribed to disc.

Depends on the concert. If it is live unamplified music I would want the best
recreation of the original sound. If it is amplified I want the best recreation
of the studio recording.

I said


The unrealistic intrinsic
stylization of film is simply accepted by the film goers.


Tom said


And by people who listen to music at home?

If it was live unamplified music most audiophiles want to get as close to the
illusion of the real event as possible I believe.

Tom said

IMO the art of either film or sound
recordings are are enhanced when they seem real; even if that 'reality' is
foley, ADR or any other kind of editing.


That is an interesting issue. Most foley sound is very far from the real sound
but is often more dramatic for impact. I think in certain elements of film
making the more realistic soemthing looks within the frame compared to
photography of something real does make for greater suspension of disbelief.

I said

This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of
music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.



Tom said


It can also be evaluated from a score.

I said


Nah. One can anticipate what it will sound like from reading the music and
one
can evaluate that anticipation, but without the music being played you don't
have music. Sheet music is as much music as a blueprint is a finished
building.

Tom said


I like your analogy but I've seen true music lovers break into tears reading
sheet music. But the idea that "music" as an artform can only be evaluated
through sound is simply not true IMO. But its not a point that needs
agrument.

They are very good at anticipating the music itself. yeah, experts can do an
amazing job of visualizing what a blue print will wrought. I didn't mean to
imply that some people can't do a great deal of worthwhile evaluation of what
the final product will be from the plans. But the evaluation that really
matters is of the final product.

I said

They both tell you what to do more or less and some skilled people can
speculate quite accurately on it's merits but there are no real merits when
all
is said and done if there is no performance of the music written on the
sheet
or a building incarnate. All of which is irrelevant to my point that seeing
performers play the music is another
mechanism for the delivery of music.


Tom said


IMO 'seeing' the performance is more likely to give you the sense of "being
at"
the perfomance and which is why I like music DVDs and laser discs. And why
film
is often more adroit at giving a "realistic" experience than sound-only
recodings.

I suppose this will depend on one's sensibilities and sensitivities. I do like
to see a musician perform the music. what I see them do says so much about the
music.

In article yk3Ra.73381$ye4.49568@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:KIHQa.63015$H17.19512@sccrnsc02...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:%4BQa.59851$Ph3.6265@sccrnsc04...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:LzkQa.48647$GL4.13222@rwcrnsc53...
In article ,
(S888Wheel) writes:

I can't match Harry Lavo's erudite comments. I can add only, (as
an anecdote, because I read it in a newspaper aricle which did not
quote the source) this interesting report from Montreal.
A patient had a minor stroke with seemingly complete function
recovery: he could walk ,hear, understand and talk but he could no
longer sing, whistle or recognise a tune. The music computer in the
brain was gone.

I have seen and read similar reports. What has that to do with the
SOUND of audio components? I would even venture that this person
might be better at recognizing differences since he isn't trying to
interpret the sounds as music.

Your ideas strike me as so, let's say, unusual that I cannot but ask
myself if I understand you correctly. But here is Nousaine saying
pretty much the same so you two must be serious. Apparently you think
that any kind of sound can be used to test differences between
components.

Why not, that's what they are, devices to reproduce sound.

You're absolutely right. Anyone can do anything. It is a free country,
right?
If you're interested in how your system will render train whistles you
check the components by ABX for how they reproduce differences between
train whistles, ditto for cannon shots, ditto for MGM lion roar, ditto
for pink noises, ditto for music if you're interested in music.
Can you draw any conclusions from the pink noise performance about the
music performance?

No, because audio systems don't "perform" music, they reproduce sound.
If they "performed" music, you would just feed them sheet music and
out it would come, just as a musician who performs music does.

A hundred dollar question; you have to offer that
little thing called *experimental evidence* that that is the case. So
far the only evidence I have is to the contrary. You guessed it :the
famous Marcus Ovchain 1,76 db test which showed that most people
performed ABX much better when pink noise was played to them than when
they had to listen to music.

And why don't you accept Occam's Razor and realize that it shows that
music can be a poor choice for determining audio differences. that's
the conclusion I came to when I read the test report.

As for the positive outcomes of ABX component comparison I'd like to
see the day when people who like to be seen as scientists stop quoting
fantasies. The challenge to give a PRECISE reference to a listening
panel, comparing electrically comparable (roughly) components with a
final POSITIVE outcome conclusion by the test proctors, was repeated
by me at least a dozen time here , in RAHE. With no response or
barefaced claims that there are "many". Or urban legends about JJ.
etc.

Maybe because when they are roughly similar, you get a null response?
Again, Occam's Razor rears it's head.

No ,one responded because NO SUCH POSITIVE REPORTS EXIST. The majority
vote that the proctors (idiotically in my far from modest opinion)
take as vox populi, vox dei is always"They all sound the same". (Let
alone that no such tests, positive or negative have been published
since 1990).
You quote Nousaine: he unkindly contradicts you in the same thread
ridiculing "cable and amplifier sound" and denying any positives. As
for JJ.

And Pinkerton and Krueger have reported that they have had positives,
a fact you seem to keep overlooking.

I had extensive discussion with him, here in RAHE. No mention to
secret, nondisclosable comparisons- just once he mentioned his
recollections of a nonpublished test. Period.

As I said, his tests were proprietary and could not be reported in
public. Have not worked for a company that had such confidentiality
agreements? I have, and they tend to enforce them strongly.

Speakers? I suggested that energetic people organise a panel ABX
comparison of good full rtange speaker and bet that the majoority will
again have a NULL, NEGATIVE result because such is the nature of the
ABX beast ("How to get a positive ABX test?" thread. The challenge so
far was not taken up- not even by H_K who have facilities for dpeaker
moving etc.
I am sorry if I ssound impatient. I am. This very exchange has been
repeated here again and again- and every time one gets anecdotes from
people claiming to be scientists.
I'll leave aside the obvious problem of "testing" wildly different
individuals and ignoring the gifted monority- did you notice that
what makes outstanding performance outstanding is that it stand out
above the crowd?

Then please run a test and show us this person, everyone would just
love to see it. But gee, no one has yet, have they?

I never thought that claim that the "test" when applied to the
generality of audiophiles of various ages, abilities, training,
musical experience etc. could produce any result other than NULL, ZERO
was anything more than a bad joke like astrology column in a
newspaper.

Speaking of things like astrology, you seam to have ignored my post
on 12 July:
From: (Audio Guy)
Subject: Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Message-ID: k_YPa.45825$N7.5623@sccrnsc03
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:05:52 GMT
In article rJXPa.45341$N7.5475@sccrnsc03,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
That is SCIENCE, kids. Not silly "personal opinions"

OK, let's discuss SCIENCE. You have explained your training and
experience in the medical field. What is your opinions on faith
healer, witch doctors, and chiropractics? These "medical practioners"
have millions of believers who disdain modern medicine and its
proponents even though there exists many, many studies and tests that
prove it's efficacy? To them modern medicine is "silly personal
opinions". How do you answer those infidels?

To those trained and experienced in the electronics field, your
objections to audio DBTs smack of the much the same.

But I can't help but feel compassion for such as Mr. Wheel
who appears genuinely to be searching for his Land of Oz only to find
perpetually that the Wizard is a fake. There ain't no "test" for
everybody. Cover up the brand names if you're worried and most will
have a better chance of getting something of signicance for them than
when performing mental ABX question and answer gymnastics.

You really have no idea at all how an ABX test actually works, do
you? Because nothing you say above indicates that you have any clue
more than it's a DBT. My guess that the reason you post at such
length against the use of DBTs in audio is that you've tried it and
it came up null wane you were so sure of a difference.

And I notice you failed to address anything I posted below, either,
you just repeated all over again the same tired complaints. How about
furthering the discussion rather than just rehashing the same points?
How about answering some of the points I made below?

Ludovic Mirabel

snip irrelevant to what followsL

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Only sound? There is no music until the
brain has processed the sound and interpreted it as music.

You entirely miss my point, the mechanism of the delivery of music
via an audio system is audio, and nothing else. It's a point I'm
trying to get Elmir to acknowledge that I've asked and to agree or
disagree.

I agree dear man, I totally agree. And the delivery of speech is also
via "audio" ie sounds. Not much help if I deliver those sounds to a
native of Kalahari desert, His brain is not wired this way. And the
brain of a heavy metal fan is not wired for cellos either.

How about you, agree or disagree.


I don't know what "audio" is as you use it. I know what sound is. I know
what music is. I know what electricity is. I know what vibrations are.
And I know that components are designed to use those elements to deliver a
facsimile of music to our brains.

If this is what you mean by audio, then I agree.

Yes, and I meant to say "via and audio systems is sound" above.

If what your really mean is electrical output (of amps, wires, etc.) then I
disagree at least as conventionally measured and sometimes evaluated.

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.

Here you go again, where is the requirement of only using a split
second for audio tests? No one on the DBT side has ever said that.


See my notes below to Tom

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. 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.

Again who said you couldn't use 20 second audio selections in
performing DBTs? Please let us know.


You don't even understand what I'm referring to. Suggest you read the
Oohashi article.

Yes, I do, and I read it back when you first mentioned it, but you
don't want to accept the any ABX or DBT has the requirement of only
using short snippets, I guess it's because it would invalidate many
of your arguments.

This fundamental fact means that you cannot measure "sound" and
determine
its impact as "music".

Never said you could, that is you inserting something I never said.


Then why are you taking on Ludovic's suggestion that abx in particular is
not the best instrument for evaluation audio components. After all, that is
*all* he has ever really argued.

Because I totally disagree with him, and ABX in particular is
perfectly suited and in fact were created specifically for that
purpose.

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.

Please get off the short burst stuff, it has never been a requirement.


Again, read and understand first and then comment, thanks.

I do and did understand, thank you. You don't seem to understand that
one can listen as long as one wants, days if desired, during an ABX
session to either of A, B, or X during the test before deciding if X
is A or B. If after days of listening to A and B, if one cannot
determine which one X is, than I doubt seriously there is a
difference, at least to you (the one taking the test).

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.

ABX especially does not require short bursts, and typically the
control of the switching is in the hands of the testee, so they can
use as long an interval as they wish. Please explain how that
invalidates any previous tests.


And if you are intent on hearing differences, as opposed to evaluating music
reproduction, the technique tends to lead you in that direction.

For one component to be better than another there must be a
difference, how else could it happen? That's the whole point.

And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist. As I've mentioned
before, I made a change to my system, remarked to myself how big a
change it made, only to find out I hadn't really made the change. All
it takes is doing that one time to realize how easy it is to be
mistaken in one's perceptions. I believe many of those on the DBT side
have had the same revelation before and it helped convince them of the
need for controls if one wants to be sure, just as it did to me.


We've all done that...it doesn't mean that all instances of sighted
listening are invalid.

Well then you didn't imagine a huge difference then, because that's
what convinced me, I thought I'd heard a very noticeable difference
when nothing at all had changed. As many of the DBT advocates have
mentioned, they were complete believers in the idea that every
component has it's own sound and that by just careful listening you
can determine which his better. But an eye opening event such as the
one I had occurs, and it dawns on you how easily one can be mistaken.

That's the logical error you folks make. Your
boolean should should be as follows (and for some here it is):

sighted listening can sometime lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, it is possible that differences are due to factors other than
sound.

No problem here.

Instead, in this newsgroup many tend to use different logic. It tends to go:

signted listening can sometimes lead to false positive differences
I am using sighted listening
Therefore, almost certainly I am imagining any differences I hear (because
we know better and because what you think you hear can't be possible, etc
etc etc)

Wrong, it's that it is very possible that I could be imaging a
difference that is not there, so controls are needed if you want to
be sure. If being sure is not a criteria, then do whatever you want.

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.

Only because those who use it find it's easiest to determine a
difference using short snippets. And yes, ABX tests have found
differences, they do not all have "no difference" reports.


Component evaluations of music reproduction? Documented and subject to a
rigorous methodological evaluation? If so, where? I'd feel a lot better
about the test which a goodly number of such results, as well as null
results. And, BTW, isn't that exactly what Ludovic and "Wheel" have been
requesting?

Not that I have, but Nousaine, JJ and others have reported them, and
JJ's in particular also included the sensitivity testing with probe
signals that Wheel has been asking for. But JJ's were not available
to the general public since they were proprietary with the exception
of those very few that were presented at AES conventions.

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.
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.

Please explain how the test "short circuits" the response since the
only thing you've mentioned is the use of short snippets, a point I
believe I've shown is not valid.


You've asserted it is not valid, without reading Oohashi et al to understand
the delay mechanism and alternative means of measurement when it comes to
evaluating music.

Since your main point seems to be that short snippets aren't any good
for evalutaing components, but they aren't a requirement at all, so
then please explain.

In article aj4Sa.81577$OZ2.15301@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message . net...
Speaking of things like astrology, you seam to have ignored my post
on 12 July:
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
That is SCIENCE, kids. Not silly "personal opinions"

OK, let's discuss SCIENCE. You have explained your training and
experience in the medical field. What is your opinions on faith
healer, witch doctors, and chiropractics? These "medical practioners"
have millions of believers who disdain modern medicine and its
proponents even though there exists many, many studies and tests that
prove it's efficacy? To them modern medicine is "silly personal
opinions". How do you answer those infidels?

I tell them that their practices have just as much grounding as those
of the DBTErs comparing components.

And that's because you have knowledge and training of the subject
matter and so are able to make such judgments. But you don't have
knowledge and training in the field of electronics and so have no more
ability to make the judgments so constantly make than a faith healer
can about modern medicine.

You are so quick to dismiss those who post here about neurology when
you find them to be incorrect about a subject you have training and
knowledge, but when someone who has the same amount of knowledge and
training in the field of electronics dismisses your layman's
"knowledge" of electronics, you badge them "pseudo scientists".

Why can't you see the analogy?

ludovic mirabel wrote:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message . net...
In article yk3Ra.73381$ye4.49568@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:


Your ideas strike me as so, let's say, unusual that I cannot but ask
myself if I understand you correctly. But here is Nousaine saying
pretty much the same so you two must be serious. Apparently you think
that any kind of sound can be used to test differences between
components.

Why not, that's what they are, devices to reproduce sound.

You're absolutely right. Anyone can do anything. It is a free country,
right?
If you're interested in how your system will render train whistles you
check the components by ABX for how they reproduce differences between
train whistles, ditto for cannon shots, ditto for MGM lion roar, ditto
for pink noises, ditto for music if you're interested in music.
Can you draw any conclusions from the pink noise performance about the
music performance?

No, because audio systems don't "perform" music, they reproduce sound.
If they "performed" music, you would just feed them sheet music and
out it would come, just as a musician who performs music does.

Bravo , you got me. They reproduce MUSIC.

Mine does movie soundtracks too!

I feel so special.

--
-S.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:29:04 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

2) In a previous posting I denied your repeated claim that JJ. quoted
mysterious nonpublishable industrial component tests. I said also that
an anecdote was ALL he had for evidence that ABX does produce
occasional positive results.
You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar
anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know
what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page?

Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX
results on several occasions, plus Arny's PCABX website is well-known
within this community, and is an excellent resource for those who wish
to know the *truth* about detecting sonic differences using
douyble-blind protocols, as opposed to your verbose denials.

3) The discussion about what "sounds" to use in ABXing goes like this:
a) we, consumers buy components to listen to music
b) we Old Believers have a test to help you out.
c) when we, O.Bs. do our test (seldom!) we find that the performance
improves using an artefact called "pink noise" instead of music.

Yes, the above is all true.

This leaves three possibilities: electronic components are designed
for pink noise, our brains are designed for pink noise, our test
stinks for assessing music reproduction by electronic components.

It also leaves the possibility that steady-state pink noise is quite
simply a more sensitive test signal for detecting small sonic
differences, which might go unnoticed with the much more varying sound
of music.

No way could our test stink. We'd, Lord forbid, would have to drop it
and stop boring the pants off everyone with "but it should be proved
by controlled etc, etc....". So.... let's drop music..

Typical non-sequitur argument from you.

4) You, like every other RAHE "scientist", failed to produce any
creditable, positive, published with the necessary statistical detail
etc ABX component comparison tests
even though 30 years have gone by to get one.

No, many such results have been quoted, but you conveniently dismiss
them all for assorted spurious reasons, while offering *zero* evidence
for your own position.

It is a basic research principle that a "test" with null outcomes,
only, is a non-test (Mr. Nousaine please note).

No, it isn't a 'non-test'. It may provide much useful information for
future test design, despite the null outcome in that particular case.

Perish the thought that all those ultra-expensive 'audiophile' cables
actually *do* simply sound the same as cheap 'zipcord'............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:JXfSa.100369$H17.30160@sccrnsc02...
In article aj4Sa.81577$OZ2.15301@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:Aw6Ra.62109
1)What have electronics, space exploration and Loch Ness Monster
sightings to do with "Why DBTs don't deliver?" For your exclusive
benefit I'll repeat: L.M. knows nothing about electronics. As a
consumer of electronic products with special experience in *true*
randomised DBTs as practiced in medical drug research he has something
to contribute on the subject of comparing electronic products by a
deconstructed "test" using the same prestigious, nonpatented name but
little else in common with it AND with no success.
I'll let psychiatrists explain how they alter Med. Research Ccil's of
U.K. DBT design for their own purposes and with what success. I
suppose you know, though.
2) In a previous posting I denied your repeated claim that JJ. quoted
mysterious nonpublishable industrial component tests.

If they were proprietary, how would I quote them? JJ was a
researcher in the field of audio and mentioned many times that he
could not divulge details of that research other than he had many
positive DBT results.

I said also that
an anecdote was ALL he had for evidence that ABX does produce
occasional positive results.
You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar
anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know
what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page?

I referenced his postings perfectly correctly, while you shown many
times how not to do it.

3) The discussion about what "sounds" to use in ABXing goes like this:
a) we, consumers buy components to listen to music
b) we Old Believers have a test to help you out.
c) when we, O.Bs. do our test (seldom!) we find that the performance
improves using an artefact called "pink noise" instead of music.
This leaves three possibilities: electronic components are designed
for pink noise, our brains are designed for pink noise, our test
stinks for assessing music reproduction by electronic components.

You missed the correct one, that electronic components are designed
to reproduce SOUND and that most music is a poor choice for
evaluating differences in audio components due to the variability of
frequencies and levels in most music.

No way could our test stink. We'd, Lord forbid, would have to drop it
and stop boring the pants off everyone with "but it should be proved
by controlled etc, etc....". So.... let's drop music..
4) You, like every other RAHE "scientist", failed to produce any
creditable, positive, published with the necessary statistical detail
etc ABX component comparison tests
even though 30 years have gone by to get one.

And you have failed to produce any creditable, negative, published
test that would indicate in any way why ABX or less specifically DBTs
are not applicable to the analysis of audio components. All you can
come up with is you don't agree with the outcomes, or that you
yourself are a poor at "ABXing".

It is a basic research principle that a "test" with null outcomes,
only, is a non-test (Mr. Nousaine please note).

Wrong, the results of any correctly performed test are useful tests
and provide valuable data.

5) Till you come up with some new, genuine evidence I'll let you carry
on by yourself. I've been there 10 times before and I'm really not
interested in more speculation and "ideas".

Since all that you posts fits that "criteria" exactly, I understand
your reluctance to continue.

Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. In case in desperation you quote Carlstrom 1983 website (like
most in your camp have done). I've been there 10 times before as well.
It is valueless as evidence and I'll just repeat my
previous dissection of it, if required.

...
Speaking of things like astrology, you seam to have ignored my post
on 12 July:
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
That is SCIENCE, kids. Not silly "personal opinions"

OK, let's discuss SCIENCE. You have explained your training and
experience in the medical field. What is your opinions on faith
healer, witch doctors, and chiropractics? These "medical practioners"
have millions of believers who disdain modern medicine and its
proponents even though there exists many, many studies and tests that
prove it's efficacy? To them modern medicine is "silly personal
opinions". How do you answer those infidels?

I tell them that their practices have just as much grounding as those
of the DBTErs comparing components.

And that's because you have knowledge and training of the subject
matter and so are able to make such judgments. But you don't have
knowledge and training in the field of electronics and so have no more
ability to make the judgments so constantly make than a faith healer
can about modern medicine.

You are so quick to dismiss those who post here about neurology when
you find them to be incorrect about a subject you have training and
knowledge, but when someone who has the same amount of knowledge and
training in the field of electronics dismisses your layman's
"knowledge" of electronics, you badge them "pseudo scientists".

Why can't you see the analogy?

In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04,
Audio Guy wrote:
In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
blah blah blah blah
I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
deliver?"

Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
contrary to his point, misrepresentation of the views of others,
irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01...
In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04,
Audio Guy wrote:
In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
blah blah blah blah
I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

The text above is headed-"Ludovic Mirabel writes" but it contains not
one single word written by me. Not one.
The last four lines are by Mr. Audio Guy (This thread, July 22 )
The witty "blah blah blah..." line comes from Mr. Pierce's pen.
Note the artful compilation of three unrelated names under the
heading: "L. Mirabel writes".
This is a second such "mistake" within the last two weeks.
On July the 8th in this forum he attributed a sentence of a Mr. Marcus
to me and performed his song and dance routine about the horror of it
all, tearing his clothes and asking dramatically: (his own capitals)
"And precisely WHO said this. Please, if you will, QUOTE the
people who said this. Don't paraphrase, please QUOTE, so that we
may understand FROM THEM what THEY said, not from YOU what you
THINK they said".
When pointed to the source he dropped the hot brick but instead
offered another long, name calling missive, which I did not think
deserved a reply.
There were other similar doctorings of my text (and other purely
personal attacks) over the last two years. I offered requotes but the
offer was not taken up . The offer still stands.
The recurrent "mistakes" leave two possibilities: Either he's
suffering from severe dyslexia or this is his normal modus operandi in
a debate.
In this last case I'd be tempted to quote (text remembered but not
necessarily word for word accurate) Mary Mc Carthy writing about
Lillian Hellman's memoirs: "Every word in it is a lie including "and"
and "but".
Mr. Pierce goes on:
Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
deliver?"

Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades. Except
that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
anyone else.
I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
treatment or an answer to the problem.
Ludovic Mirabel

In article U2BTa.127706$N7.18608@sccrnsc03,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01...
In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04,
Audio Guy wrote:
In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
blah blah blah blah
I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

The text above is headed-"Ludovic Mirabel writes" but it contains not
one single word written by me. Not one.
The last four lines are by Mr. Audio Guy (This thread, July 22 )
The witty "blah blah blah..." line comes from Mr. Pierce's pen.
Note the artful compilation of three unrelated names under the
heading: "L. Mirabel writes".

To anyone who understands how quoted text appears in standard
newsgroup posting format, it would appear that everything after the
line with your name in it is attributed to me, not you since if it
was your text it would have an additional "" character before it.
Please learn how newsgroup posting works before blaming people for
misquoting you. I assume Dick included the line with your name just
to show that I was talking about your post. The reason there is
nothing the from the post it references was that you truncated it
several posts before.

One other thing, you also do a very poor job of referring to previous
posts, simply stating the date of the post is next to useless,
especially if the person referenced made several posts to the thread
during that day. Please include the Message-Id so that we who wish to
check your reference can do so without having to do an extensive
search. For someone who insists on such details on references to test
reports, it would be the least you could do. I'm surprised the
moderators allow such sloppy references.

In article U2BTa.127706$N7.18608@sccrnsc03,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01...
In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04,
Audio Guy wrote:
In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
blah blah blah blah
I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post
and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your
same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many
times.

The text above is headed-"Ludovic Mirabel writes" but it contains not
one single word written by me. Not one.
The last four lines are by Mr. Audio Guy (This thread, July 22 )
The witty "blah blah blah..." line comes from Mr. Pierce's pen.
Note the artful compilation of three unrelated names under the
heading: "L. Mirabel writes".
This is a second such "mistake" within the last two weeks.
On July the 8th in this forum he attributed a sentence of a Mr. Marcus
to me and performed his song and dance routine about the horror of it
all, tearing his clothes and asking dramatically: (his own capitals)
"And precisely WHO said this. Please, if you will, QUOTE the
people who said this. Don't paraphrase, please QUOTE, so that we
may understand FROM THEM what THEY said, not from YOU what you
THINK they said".
When pointed to the source he dropped the hot brick but instead
offered another long, name calling missive, which I did not think
deserved a reply.
There were other similar doctorings of my text (and other purely
personal attacks) over the last two years. I offered requotes but the
offer was not taken up . The offer still stands.
The recurrent "mistakes" leave two possibilities: Either he's
suffering from severe dyslexia or this is his normal modus operandi in
a debate.
In this last case I'd be tempted to quote (text remembered but not
necessarily word for word accurate) Mary Mc Carthy writing about
Lillian Hellman's memoirs: "Every word in it is a lie including "and"
and "but".
Mr. Pierce goes on:
Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not
deliver?"

Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data
contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others,
irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs.

I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades. Except
that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the
audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors.
Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous
personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see
the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or
anyone else.
I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and
asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared
in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think
that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded
treatment or an answer to the problem.
Ludovic Mirabel