Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:51:42 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46:30 PM UTC-8, wrote=

:=20
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:37:24 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:



I still believe that the only way to do a DBT/ABX of something as=20
subtly different as amplifiers should be done with each amp being=20
auditioned for as much as a half hour before switching to the other=

=20
amp. Use the same cuts from test CDs for each session, played in=20
the same order. Of course careful level matching and strict double
blindness must still be maintained. I suspect that such a test might
uncover differences that short term, instantaneous switching doesn't
reveal.

=20
As long as I've been reading RAHE (which is going on 15 years, I think)=

, I've seen this belief expressed. One of these believers ought to try it =
sometime. Perhaps they will teach the world of psychoacoustics something. (=
I am not holding my breath.)
=20
I have tried it.=20


No, you haven't, not with enough rigor to pass the laugh test. It's clear f=
rom your posts that you don't have a clear grasp of what is required to con=
duct a scientifically valid DBT.

And if there are any differences, one has a much better=20
chance of uncovering them if one really listens to the devices being=20
auditioned. You can't do that when two devices are being swapped=20
out for each other every few seconds (or even every couple of minutes).=

=20

There's solid science that says the opposite is true--comparing brief snipp=
ets of sound and switching quickly between them actually makes the test mor=
e sensitive to differences, not less. Sean Olive's speaker preference tests=
for Harman use per-speaker presentations measured in seconds, not minutes.=
If longer presentations worked better, it would be in Harman's economic in=
terest to use them.

As long as the auditions are truly double-blind, and the levels are caref=

ully=20
matched to less than a dB,


And here is clear evidence that you don't know how to do a DBT. A 1 dB diff=
erence is way too large. Try 0.1 dB. Also required is a forced-choice forma=
t and a statistically significant result over a meaningful number of trials=
..

bob

  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:51:42 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46:30 PM UTC-8, wro=

te:=20
=20
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:37:24 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
I still believe that the only way to do a DBT/ABX of something as=

=20
=20
subtly different as amplifiers should be done with each amp being=

=20
=20
auditioned for as much as a half hour before switching to the other=

=20
=20
amp. Use the same cuts from test CDs for each session, played in=20

=20
the same order. Of course careful level matching and strict double

=20
blindness must still be maintained. I suspect that such a test migh=

t
=20
uncover differences that short term, instantaneous switching doesn'=

t
=20
reveal.

=20
=20

=20
As long as I've been reading RAHE (which is going on 15 years, I thin=

k), I've seen this belief expressed. One of these believers ought to try i=
t sometime. Perhaps they will teach the world of psychoacoustics something.=
(I am not holding my breath.)
=20
=20

=20
I have tried it.=20

=20
=20
=20
No, you haven't, not with enough rigor to pass the laugh test.


That's amusing. Anytime you strict "objectivists" hear of a result=20
that goes against your dogma, it's always "The test was not=20
conducted properly" Or "the test wasn't rigorous enough." I'll
say one thing. It certainly keeps you fellows safe and sound.

It's clear from your posts that you don't have a clear grasp of what is re=

quired to conduct a scientifically valid DBT.

Well, then Bob. When you get finished laughing at me, why don't enlighten u=
s=20
as to the correct methodology for conducting scientifically valid audio DBT=
s?=20

And if there are any differences, one has a much better=20

=20
chance of uncovering them if one really listens to the devices being=20

=20
auditioned. You can't do that when two devices are being swapped=20

=20
out for each other every few seconds (or even every couple of minutes).=

=20
=20
=20
=20
There's solid science that says the opposite is true--comparing brief sni=

ppets of sound and switching quickly between them actually makes the test m=
ore sensitive to differences, not less. Sean Olive's speaker preference tes=
ts for Harman use per-speaker presentations measured in seconds, not minute=
s. If longer presentations worked better, it would be in Harman's economic =
interest to use them.

Here is just another reason why I think that DBTs for audio are a flawed=20
methodology. How, for instance, are you going to tell whether
one DAC resolves image specificity better than another with short snippets?
What if the "snippets" are studio produced with multi-miked and multi-
channel performances that HAVE NO image specificity? How is switching
between two DACs, for instance every couple of seconds going to show=20
the imaging characteristics of the DUTs, even if that info is present in th=
e
program material? It can't. No wonder Scientifically valid DBTs so often
return a null result with the finding that everything sounds alike.
Thanks for confirming my doubts, Bob.=20
=20
=20
=20
As long as the auditions are truly double-blind, and the levels are car=

efully=20
=20
matched to less than a dB,

=20
=20
=20
And here is clear evidence that you don't know how to do a DBT. A 1 dB di=

fference is way too large. Try 0.1 dB. Also required is a forced-choice for=
mat and a statistically significant result over a meaningful number of tria=
ls.
=20
=20
=20
bob


Would you mind telling me EXACTLY how anybody is going to match=20
levels to 1/10th of a dB? Even the most expensive audio equipment=20
doesn't have potentiometers on them that have that kind of resolution,=20
because audio doesn't need that kind of resolution. It can be done to less
than one dB easily enough, maybe even 1/2 of a dB is doable, but 1/10th?
That would require aerospace-spec 10-turn pots, and they're not exactly=20
cheap, or all that easy to source. And some here say that DBTs are easy
to set-up. Gimme a break.
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Friday, December 21, 2012 9:08:36 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:51=A0am, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46:30 PM UTC-8, wro=

te:
=20
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:37:24 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

=20

=20
I still believe that the only way to do a DBT/ABX of something as

=20

=20
subtly different as amplifiers should be done with each amp being

=20

=20
auditioned for as much as a half hour before switching to the other

=20

=20
amp. Use the same cuts from test CDs for each session, played in

=20

=20
the same order. Of course careful level matching and strict double

=20

=20
blindness must still be maintained. I suspect that such a test migh=

t
=20

=20
uncover differences that short term, instantaneous switching doesn'=

t
=20

=20
reveal.

=20

=20
As long as I've been reading RAHE (which is going on 15 years, I thin=

k), I've seen this belief expressed. =A0One of these believers ought to try=
it sometime. Perhaps they will teach the world of psychoacoustics somethin=
g. (I am not holding my breath.)
=20

=20
bob

=20

=20
I have tried it. And if there are any differences, one has a much bette=

r
=20
chance of uncovering them if one really listens to the devices being

=20
auditioned. You can't do that when two devices are being swapped

=20
out for each other every few seconds (or even every couple of minutes).

=20
As long as the auditions are truly double-blind, and the levels are car=

efully
=20
matched to less than a dB, and the same varied demonstration material i=

s
=20
used in each instance, they are still true DBTs.

=20
=20
=20
I agree. Selection of the source... A, B, or X should be under
=20
subject control and for as long as the subject desires with whatever
=20
material the subject desires before making a choice. My own choice
=20
of material would not be limited to music. It masks rather than
=20
illuminates differences.


I hadn't considered that. Yeah, I think a selection of drums or gun shots,=
=20
and other kinds of day-to-day sounds would be useful as part of the
mix of test material.
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:26:02 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...



I still believe that the only way to do a DBT/ABX of something as


subtly different as amplifiers should be done with each amp being

auditioned for as much as a half hour before switching to the other

amp.



Been there, done that.





Use the same cuts from test CDs for each session, played in


the same order.



Been there, done that.



Of course careful level matching and strict double-


blindness must still be maintained.



Been there, done that.





I suspect that such a test might


uncover differences that short term, instantaneous switching doesn't

reveal.



Didn't happen. So much for this round of hoops and sticks. ;-)


But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear
these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test
this way?

This appears to be a terribly unbalanced discussion. On the one side we seem

to have little but denial and speculation. On the other side we have over 35

years of hands-on experience with highly sophisticated real world testing of

dozens of amplifiers and equal numbers of DACs, signal processors and

players, some of it documented in the largest circulation consumer and

professional audio publications around.


And some of these Large circulation consumer professional audio publications
do note differences in sound. So, here we are at an impasse.
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:38:05 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

That's amusing. Anytime you strict "objectivists" hear of a result
that goes against your dogma, it's always "The test was not
conducted properly" Or "the test wasn't rigorous enough." I'll
say one thing. It certainly keeps you fellows safe and sound.


Results? What results? I haven't seen any results. All I've seen is one unsupported claim by an anonymous Usenet poster who doesn't even know how to match levels.

Here is just another reason why I think that DBTs for audio are a flawed
methodology. How, for instance, are you going to tell whether
one DAC resolves image specificity better than another with short snippets?


A DAC does not "resolve image specificity." A DAC puts out two separate channels of audio with virtually no crosstalk between them. These two channels do not meaningfully interact in any way until sound emerges from speakers. That's how an audio system works.

What if the "snippets" are studio produced with multi-miked and multi-
channel performances that HAVE NO image specificity? How is switching
between two DACs, for instance every couple of seconds going to show
the imaging characteristics of the DUTs, even if that info is present in the
program material? It can't.


If that's what you think, you're free to do a DBT any way you like. But just do it (with at least one skeptical witness, please). Imagining what you think you'll hear doesn't count.

Would you mind telling me EXACTLY how anybody is going to match
levels to 1/10th of a dB? Even the most expensive audio equipment
doesn't have potentiometers on them that have that kind of resolution,
because audio doesn't need that kind of resolution. It can be done to less
than one dB easily enough, maybe even 1/2 of a dB is doable, but 1/10th?
That would require aerospace-spec 10-turn pots, and they're not exactly
cheap, or all that easy to source. And some here say that DBTs are easy
to set-up. Gimme a break.


A decent voltmeter should be all you need.

bob



  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:38:45 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hea=

r=20
these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test=

=20
this way?=20

=20
Sure it's possible for one test subject. But my original post lists numerou=
s tests conducted by different groups with numerous subjects, all of which =
show the same general inability to hear differences among DACs.=20

Now, maybe everyone who's ever conducted a DBT for publication has stacked =
his test panel with skeptics. But if that's the case, it should have been e=
asy for other, more "enlightened" publications to conduct their own DBTs, w=
ith their own true believers, and blow the existing science out of the wate=
r. Why haven't they done that?

I'll tell you why: Because they know as well as I do that the results would=
expose their reviewers as frauds and put them out of business.

bob
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear
these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test
this way?


Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject came
up?

The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not 100s
or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because they
were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied.

  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, wrote:

There's solid science that says the opposite is true--comparing brief
snippets of sound and switching quickly between them actually makes the
test more sensitive to differences, not less. Sean Olive's speaker
preference tests for Harman use per-speaker presentations measured in
seconds, not minutes. If longer presentations worked better, it would be
in Harman's economic interest to use them.


Here is just another reason why I think that DBTs for audio are a flawed
methodology.


What is flawed is pretending that ABX is only done with short snippets when
the opposite has been published in places like Audio magazine and said many
times on this forum.

How, for instance, are you going to tell whetherne DAC resolves image
specificity better than another with short snippets?


There the thread goes downhill again, based on posts pretending that the
author is smarter than science.

Yawn.

I get very tired of correcting the same egregious and illogical mistakes,
every time the topic comes up.



  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:55:20 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, December 21, 2012 4:38:45 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to h=

ear=20
=20
these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test=

=20
=20
this way?=20

=20
=20
=20
Sure it's possible for one test subject. But my original post lists numer=

ous tests conducted by different groups with numerous subjects, all of whic=
h show the same general inability to hear differences among DACs.=20

I don't remember addressing you with that comment, but if you insist on=20
taking it personally, I have no real objection. OTOH, if those tests were=
=20
carried out in the way that proposed as "the right way", then I don't doubt
that all the subjects "show the same inability to hear differences among DA=
Cs."=20
=20
Now, maybe everyone who's ever conducted a DBT for publication has stacke=

d his test panel with skeptics. But if that's the case, it should have been=
easy for other, more "enlightened" publications to conduct their own DBTs,=
with their own true believers, and blow the existing science out of the wa=
ter. Why haven't they done that?

Can't say. What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt,
as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating
audio components.=20

I'll tell you why: Because they know as well as I do that the results wou=

ld expose their reviewers as frauds and put them out of business.

You are more than welcome to hold fast to that belief. Personally, I think=
=20
the methodology is wrong. And you can quote chapter and verse of=20
Psychoacoustical dogma and statistical analysis 'till the end of time
and it won't change my mind. In fact I agree that using the type of DBT
that you and some others have been talking about, is almost surely=20
going to return a null result. By definition and design it HAS TO return
that result for a variety of reasons. =20
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...



But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear


these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test


this way?




Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject came

up?



The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not 100s

or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because they

were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied.


Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable
of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons.


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:29:56 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

I don't remember addressing you with that comment, but if you insist on
taking it personally, I have no real objection.


I wasn't taking it personally. I was just pointing out how wrong you were.

Can't say. What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt,
as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating
audio components.


And we all know why: Those tests expose them as the frauds they are.

And you can quote chapter and verse of
Psychoacoustical dogma and statistical analysis 'till the end of time
and it won't change my mind.


Kinda sums it all up right there.

bob
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:09:54 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...



On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, wrote:



There's solid science that says the opposite is true--comparing brief


snippets of sound and switching quickly between them actually makes the


test more sensitive to differences, not less. Sean Olive's speaker


preference tests for Harman use per-speaker presentations measured in


seconds, not minutes. If longer presentations worked better, it would be


in Harman's economic interest to use them.




Here is just another reason why I think that DBTs for audio are a flawed


methodology.




What is flawed is pretending that ABX is only done with short snippets when

the opposite has been published in places like Audio magazine and said many

times on this forum.



How, for instance, are you going to tell whetherne DAC resolves image


specificity better than another with short snippets?




There the thread goes downhill again, based on posts pretending that the

author is smarter than science.



Yawn.



I get very tired of correcting the same egregious and illogical mistakes,

every time the topic comes up.


Fine, then don't answer such threads. But it was NAB who INSISTED that DBTs are best served
by short snipits lasting only a few seconds. This debate was aimed at him, not you.
  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt,
as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating
audio components.


Based on the comments I've seen on RAHE the last 2 or so weeks, up-to-date
knowlege about the current state of DBT testing methodologies is uncommon.

The first big tipoff is all of the exclusive references to ABX, which in
2012 has nothing like an exclusive grip on the world of subjective testing.
In fact ABX was obsoleted for most of the kinds of testing that most audio
practitioners want to do on the day it was invented. And I invented it! ;-)
Seriously, though.

Here is what looks like a pretty good paper on the topic. Looks like it is
more than a decade old so no, it doesn't have the latest greatest wisdom,
but it looks pretty good compared to what I've seen on RAHE lately. Hope it
dispells the rapidly-gathering fog:

http://telos-systems.com/techtalk/00222.pdf

  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On 12/22/2012 8:30 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...



But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to hear


these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test


this way?




Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject came

up?



The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not 100s

or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because they

were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied.


Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable
of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons.


So it's your position that DBT's have never had positive results for
difference? Really?

Keith

  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:30:12 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable
of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons.


But they do give positive results. My OP noted several.

bob



  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message


...


But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to
hear
these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test
this way?


Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject
came
up?


The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not
100s
or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because
they
were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied.


Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design,
incapable
of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons.


The above statement shows exactly the kind of unthinking, unyielding bias
that we're dealing with here.

Absolutely nothing has been said about the details of the tests in question,
yet they have been disqualified apparently simply because they exist.



  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:18:46 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:29:56 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:



I don't remember addressing you with that comment, but if you insist on


taking it personally, I have no real objection.




I wasn't taking it personally. I was just pointing out how wrong you were.


I beg to differ, If you didn't take it personally, you wouldn't have answered it.
And to set the record straight, you were pointing out how wrong YOU believe
me to be. I.E. you were confusing opinion with fact. They aren't always the same
thing as much as we would like for them to be.


Can't say. What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt,


as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating


audio components.




And we all know why: Those tests expose them as the frauds they are.


Your opinion. You are entitled to it, but your opinion as to why many reviewers
both here and abroad doubt the efficacy of DBT for audio is quite incorrect.

And you can quote chapter and verse of


Psychoacoustical dogma and statistical analysis 'till the end of time


and it won't change my mind.



Kinda sums it all up right there.


Yes it does. It's going to take more than quotes from adherents
to a methodology that I believe is wrong-headed to make me
a believer in this form of audio testing. See, no one has proven
to me that DBT testing of audio equipment covers all of the
bases. In fact, I'm more than reasonably sure that it doesn't.
There are things that a few seconds of listening before
switching to the alternate DUT will rarely, if ever, uncover.
For instance, Many characteristics also require the RIGHT kind of
source material. Like I said before, you'll not uncover differences in
dimensionality and image specificity (one of the main differences
that I find in DACs) using source material that was multi-miked in
a studio using 8, 16, 32, and more channels. Because such studio
recordings don't have ANY image specificity. They can't. They
aren't real stereo. They are multi-channel mono with the instruments
pan-potted into position. Do any kind of listening test with such
recordings (rock, "pop", most jazz, some classical [Columbia recordings
made in the late sixties through the '80's, for instance]), and there is
NO real soundstage, so that aspect of a DAC's performance will
simply be ignored by the testing procedure, whatever that listening test
procedure might be.
  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:02:35 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...

On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:


"Audio_Empire" wrote in message




...




But isn't it possible that this is your inability or unwillingness to


hear


these things that produces, for you, a sameness for everything you test


this way?




Didn't I answer this very same question the last time that the subject


came


up?




The short answer is that we've done listening tests with dozens if not


100s


or 1,000s of people, many of which were specifically engaged because


they


were outspoken advocates of the audibility of the issues being studied.




Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design,


incapable


of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons.




The above statement shows exactly the kind of unthinking, unyielding bias

that we're dealing with here.


Does the irony of your response elude you?


Absolutely nothing has been said about the details of the tests in question,

yet they have been disqualified apparently simply because they exist.


No they've been disqualified because NAB said that the only way to conduct
such a test is to play but a few seconds of a selection before switching to
the other DUT where only a few seconds are played through it before switching
back to the first DUT again. Specifically, what I said was that If this is how
"scientifically correct" DBTs are always conducted, then its no wonder that they
return a verdict of there being no differences between DACs (or anything else
for that matter).
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:02:18 PM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 12/22/2012 8:30 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2012 7:27:51 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:


"Audio_Empire" wrote in message




...



So it's your position that DBT's have never had positive results for

difference? Really?


To hear some of these "strict objectivists" tell the story they've never
had a positive result. Their dogma is that all modern amps sound the
same, and all DACs sound exactly the same (unless they are incompetently
designed) and by extension all CD players as well.

I KNOW that not all DBTs produce a negative result. I've been party to several.
But anytime that I bring that up, the "usual suspects" chime in with such
inevitable responses as "the test was not rigorous enough", or "You don't under
-stand proper DBT methodology." Etc. IOW, in order to satisfy some of these
folks, the only DBT result that they will accept is a negative result. They won't
argue with that.
  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:02:23 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:30:12 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:



Like I told NAB, above. These kinds of tests are by their very design, incapable


of giving a positive result for a variety of reasons.




But they do give positive results. My OP noted several.


Sorry Bob, I must've missed that post somehow.



  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:09:54 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:


I get very tired of correcting the same egregious and illogical mistakes,
every time the topic comes up.


Fine, then don't answer such threads.


That would suit those who keep making the same old, same old egregious and
illogical mistakes because then they would go uncorrected.

But it was NAB who INSISTED that DBTs are best served by short snipits
lasting only a few seconds.


And NAB is right. Established science says so and practical experiences
showed it to be true for decades before that.

This debate was aimed at him, not you.


Like I said, those of us are up with our science and have decades of
practical experience are stuck dealing with correcting the same errors every
time the issues come up.


  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Monday, December 24, 2012 11:13:23 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

And to set the record straight, you were pointing out how wrong YOU belie=

ve=20
me to be. I.E. you were confusing opinion with fact.=20


You are not wrong because I say so. You are wrong because all of the availa=
ble facts (as summarized in the first post in this thread), disagree with y=
ou. When you opine one thing, and all available facts contradict you, then =
you are wrong.

bob

P.S.: To save me replying to another post of yours, please go back and read=
the first post in this thread, so you will know what I am talking about. I=
n it you will find not only a catalog of a wide range of DBTs, but also a c=
itation from a leading monograph in the field of psychoacoustics. When you =
hold unsupported beliefs contradicted by the relevant scientific field as r=
eflected in its basic textbooks, you are wrong.

  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Monday, December 24, 2012 11:13:50 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

No they've been disqualified because NAB said that the only way to conduc=

t
such a test is to play but a few seconds of a selection before switching =

to
the other DUT where only a few seconds are played through it before switc=

hing
back to the first DUT again.


No, I have never said that. What I said was that if you wanted a DBT to be =
as sensitive to differences as possible, that's the way you should do it. T=
hat's scientifically accepted.

Of course, you're perfectly free to conduct your DBTs any way you like. If =
you use longer passages without immediate switching, and you get positive r=
esults with all appropriate controls in place (double-blind, level-matched,=
statistical significance), then I and others will accept them as correct.=
=20

But if you do that, then I guarantee we'll be able to get the same positive=
results using a quick-switching methodology!

BTW, here's a good article on the fallacy of long-term listening tests:
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf

bob

  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

Yes it does. It's going to take more than quotes from adherents
to a methodology that I believe is wrong-headed to make me
a believer in this form of audio testing.


That appears to be mission impossible.

You seem to have already taken the position that everything we know about
the thresholds of hearing for the various kinds of audible differences are
wrong and/or that there are other explanations for audible differences.

See, no one has proven
to me that DBT testing of audio equipment covers all of the
bases.


IOW, according to you DBT has to be perfect but we already know that nothing
is perfect.

In fact, I'm more than reasonably sure that it doesn't.


In your own eyes, yes.

There are things that a few seconds of listening before
switching to the alternate DUT will rarely, if ever, uncover.


Says you and forget about sceince.

For instance, Many characteristics also require the RIGHT kind of
source material.


Finding the right few seconds of program material is required, and we've
known that for about 4 decades.

Like I said before, you'll not uncover differences in
dimensionality and image specificity (one of the main differences
that I find in DACs)


Interesting that your all-important crteria is hearing differences among
DACs when science says that even mid-grade DACs are overkill for audio.

using source material that was multi-miked in
a studio using 8, 16, 32, and more channels. Because such studio
recordings don't have ANY image specificity.


Ignores all the DBTs that have been done with minimal-miced music, which are
numerous.

It just goes on and on...


  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Mark DeBellis[_2_] Mark DeBellis[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Dec 24 2012, 12:16=A0pm, wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2012 11:13:50 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
No they've been disqualified because NAB said that the only way to cond=

uct
such a test is to play but a few seconds of a selection before switchin=

g to
the other DUT where only a few seconds are played through it before swi=

tching
back to the first DUT again.


No, I have never said that. What I said was that if you wanted a DBT to b=

e as sensitive to differences as possible, that's the way you should do it.=
That's scientifically accepted.

Of course, you're perfectly free to conduct your DBTs any way you like. I=

f you use longer passages without immediate switching, and you get positive=
results with all appropriate controls in place (double-blind, level-matche=
d, statistical significance), then I and others will accept them as correct=
..

But if you do that, then I guarantee we'll be able to get the same positi=

ve results using a quick-switching methodology!

BTW, here's a good article on the fallacy of long-term listening tests:ht=

tp://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf

bob


Hi Bob,

We discussed some of these topics a few years ago and I learned a lot
from the discussion, thank you (and nice to see you're still here!).
But I *still* think that perceptual equivalence is not the same as
indistinguishability.

I would be interested in your thoughts about the following.

First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two
signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish
one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and
forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening
to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be
difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but
nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive
greater pleasure from one than from the other.

Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that
the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.

The second example, which I am granting is hypothetical, would be one
where we would want to say (I think) that the way A sounds is not the
same as the way B sounds, though they might well be indistinguishable
in the relevant testing situations.

What do you think? Thanks.

Mark


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:28:14 AM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote:


First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two
signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish
one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and
forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening
to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be
difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but
nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive
greater pleasure from one than from the other.


Not only is this possible, but it's quite common. I frequently listen to th=
e same piece of music twice, and derive greater (or lesser) pleasure the se=
cond time through.

Of course, both times I'm listening on exactly the same system, so we canno=
t ascribe the difference in pleasure to any difference in sound quality. Qu=
ite likely, I have focused on different things each time I listened, and he=
ard things the second time that I didn't notice the first.

By the same token, if I'd done that listening on two different systems, I c=
ould not ascribe any difference in pleasure to a difference between the sys=
tems, because there are other possible explanations.

Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that
the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.


So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot he=
ar it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it? It s=
eems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real world. =
And that's leaving aside the fact that what you're suggesting is pure scien=
ce fiction to begin with. Don't bother suggesting anything similar; I won't=
respond.

bob


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Mark DeBellis[_2_] Mark DeBellis[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

[quoted text deleted -- deb] On Jan 7, 7:24 pm,
wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:28:14 AM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote:
First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two
signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish
one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and
forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening
to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be
difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but
nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive
greater pleasure from one than from the other.


Not only is this possible, but it's quite common. I frequently listen to =

the same piece of music twice, and derive greater (or lesser) pleasure the =
second time through.

Of course, both times I'm listening on exactly the same system, so we can=

not ascribe the difference in pleasure to any difference in sound quality. =
Quite likely, I have focused on different things each time I listened, and =
heard things the second time that I didn't notice the first.


I mean consistently, so that the two signals have different causal
properties. It seems to me that that's possible.


By the same token, if I'd done that listening on two different systems, I=

could not ascribe any difference in pleasure to a difference between the s=
ystems, because there are other possible explanations.

Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that
the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.


So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot =

hear it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it?

I didn't say you could.

It seems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real wo=

rld.

Why impossible? There could not be sounds that affect loudness
sensitivity that are not directly audible?

And that's leaving aside the fact that what you're suggesting is pure scie=

nce fiction to begin with.

Think of it as a thought experiment. It's a logical point. "A and B
sound different" is ambiguous. It can mean

(1) The way A sounds is X, and the way B sounds is Y, and X is not
identical to Y,

or

(2) It sounds like A and B are different.

It's a scope ambiguity. In (2), "different" is within the scope of
"sounds." In (1), it lies outside.


Don't bother suggesting anything similar; I won't respond.

bob

[quoted text deleted -- deb]


Thank you for your response.

Mark

  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

Mark DeBellis wrote:
Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that
the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.

The second example, which I am granting is hypothetical, would be one
where we would want to say (I think) that the way A sounds is not the
same as the way B sounds, though they might well be indistinguishable
in the relevant testing situations.


Several points

1. The scenario you describe is one where the two would be
trivially distinguishable in all but the most simple of
measurements, thus it would be easy to test your hypothesis.

2. Given what IS known about the properties of human hearing
(and that's a LOT, much, much more than most participants
in this an similar forums are aware of, no insult intended)
given the amplitude and frequency of the ultrsonic levels
needed to cause this loss in sensitivity in a way that is
going to have an audible effect, the amount of ultrasonic
energy could well be sufficient to fry the tweeters. Thus,
yes, the two systems would sound different.

3. Your hypothesis is easily tested. Why no do so?

The point is this, I am not discounting your hypothesis out of hand,
nor even the possibility that similar phenomenon might be at play.

But the fact is that specualtion and hypthesizing and all the rest
are pointless without some real data on hand to see if all this
is not anything more than clutching at straws to explain away
differences due to non-auditory effects.

And without carefully controlled, bias-controlled, repeatable
procedures that have statistically significant outcomes, it
will always remain nothing more than clutching at straws.

People smarter and with FAR more experience than you, than me,
than Nabob, than Audio Empire, than the various incarnations of
the Scotts, and many more, have been doing very careful research
on an incredibly broad range of human psychophysical phenomenon,
with sensitivities far beyond what you and others have suggested
here. Why haven't they found what is being claimed?

And if they have missed something real, something you think is
significant, then its up to you to prove that this new, as yet
incovered TRVTH (tm) is out there. And without the scientific
rigor to back it up, you and anyone else claims are going precisely
nowhere.

I still assert that there does not exist a single instance of
an aspect of technology or hearing originating in or discovered
by the high-end audio industry. All such claims fall squarely,
thus far, into two bins: total flooby dust, or ho-hum-this-
has-been-well-known-for-decades.

And this will remain as long as the high-end "research" is
dominated by imprecision, sloppiness, purveyors of snake-oil
lakc of skepticism and, rgertaably, more than its share of
total nutcases. Whatever real data might appear is buried
in that excrement.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Mark DeBellis[_2_] Mark DeBellis[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Jan 7, 9:24=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Second, consider the following hypothetical example. =A0Two recorded
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. =A0Plausibly, the way A
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that
the end of B will have. =A0However, it's not going to be easy to test
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. =A0If the listener
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. =A0And if the
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.


The second example, which I am granting is hypothetical, would be one
where we would want to say (I think) that the way A sounds is not the
same as the way B sounds, though they might well be indistinguishable
in the relevant testing situations.


Several points

1. The scenario you describe is one where the two would be
=A0 =A0 trivially distinguishable in all but the most simple of
=A0 =A0 measurements, thus it would be easy to test your hypothesis.


Why would they be distinguishable by the listener?

  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Monday, January 7, 2013 4:24:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:28:14 AM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote:
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two

=20
signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish

=20
one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and

=20
forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening

=20
to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be

=20
difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but

=20
nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive

=20
greater pleasure from one than from the other.

=20
=20
=20
Not only is this possible, but it's quite common. I frequently listen to =

the same piece of music twice, and derive greater (or lesser) pleasure the =
second time through.
=20
=20
=20
Of course, both times I'm listening on exactly the same system, so we can=

not ascribe the difference in pleasure to any difference in sound quality. =
Quite likely, I have focused on different things each time I listened, and =
heard things the second time that I didn't notice the first.
=20
=20
=20
By the same token, if I'd done that listening on two different systems, I=

could not ascribe any difference in pleasure to a difference between the s=
ystems, because there are other possible explanations.
=20
=20
=20
Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded

=20
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added

=20
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a

=20
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A

=20
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,

=20
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that

=20
the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test

=20
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener

=20
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because

=20
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the

=20
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she

=20
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which

=20
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.

=20
=20
=20
So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot =

hear it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it? It=
seems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real world=
.. And that's leaving aside the fact that what you're suggesting is pure sci=
ence fiction to begin with. Don't bother suggesting anything similar; I won=
't respond.
=20
=20
=20
bob
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
[quoted text deleted -- deb]


I think Mark is on to something there, but I'm not terribly sure that you q=
uite=20
understood what he was saying.=20

What I got out of Marks post, if I understand this correctly, is that he be=
lieves=20
that devices which cannot be distinguished from one another by DBTs and=20
possibly even on long listening sessions or by bench measurements, may stil=
l,=20
on a subconscious level, affect the pleasure centers of the brain in differ=
ent=20
ways. I think we have all experienced this in one way or another. Even thou=
gh=20
one can't put one's finger on it, for some reason B is "more pleasurable" t=
o=20
listen to than A. This, if a real phenomenon, would certainly defy any atte=
mpts=20
at testing it and MAY indeed be why some people perceive differences in sim=
ple=20
interconnects or speaker wire. I say that it MAY be simply because the othe=
r=20
factors, such as measurements (being simple conductors, speaker cables=20
and interconnects are extremely easy to measure and to mathematically=20
model) and expectational bias are strong factors here mitigating against th=
e=20
wire and cable used in stereo systems having any discernible sonic signatur=
e. =20

Audio_Empire



  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:44:28 PM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote:
[quoted text deleted -- deb] On Jan 7, 7:24 pm,
wrote:


I mean consistently, so that the two signals have different causal
properties. It seems to me that that's possible.


As I said before, anything is possible. But there is no evidence that this can actually occur, and a lot of indirect evidence that it cannot occur. Until there's some real evidence that it can occur, there is no point in discussing it.

snip

So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot hear it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it?


I didn't say you could.


Then your hypothetical is irrelevant.

It seems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real world.


Why impossible? There could not be sounds that affect loudness
sensitivity that are not directly audible?


No. Because you've devised a hypothetical in which you are claiming that something is audible, and yet admitting that there are no circumstances under which it is audible. You aren't making any sense.

bob
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On Jan 7, 9:24 pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that
the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.


Several points

1. The scenario you describe is one where the two would be
trivially distinguishable in all but the most simple of
measurements, thus it would be easy to test your hypothesis.


Why would they be distinguishable by the listener?


I'm not syaing they would be distiguishable by the listener.
That's not muy claim. You hypothesized that the differences in
ultrsonic energy could have an effect on the short term
loudness sensitivity of the listener, a hypothesis I am
challenging. I merely stated that the differences between
the two would be "trivially distinguishable in all but the most
simple of measurements."

It also would be a relatively simple experiment to try. TO turn
such a hypothesis into an acceted theory requires verifiable,
falsifiable, repeatable experimentation.


--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On 1/7/2013 9:03 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 4:24:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:


snip

I think Mark is on to something there, but I'm not terribly sure that you quite
understood what he was saying.

What I got out of Marks post, if I understand this correctly, is that he believes
that devices which cannot be distinguished from one another by DBTs and
possibly even on long listening sessions or by bench measurements, may still,
on a subconscious level, affect the pleasure centers of the brain in different
ways. I think we have all experienced this in one way or another. Even though
one can't put one's finger on it, for some reason B is "more pleasurable" to
listen to than A.


Then how is it that they cannot be distinguished? Your postulate is
clearly that there is a perceived difference in A and B. If you're
saying one is more pleasurable, but can't be perceived as such, then
you're claiming mutually exclusive attributes.


This, if a real phenomenon, would certainly defy any attempts
at testing it


How so? Any double blind preference test would clearly identify a
statistically significant preference for A or B.


Keith

  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:00:27 AM UTC-8, KH wrote:
On 1/7/2013 9:03 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:

On Monday, January 7, 2013 4:24:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:




snip



I think Mark is on to something there, but I'm not terribly sure that you quite


understood what he was saying.




What I got out of Marks post, if I understand this correctly, is that he believes


that devices which cannot be distinguished from one another by DBTs and


possibly even on long listening sessions or by bench measurements, may still,


on a subconscious level, affect the pleasure centers of the brain in different


ways. I think we have all experienced this in one way or another. Even though


one can't put one's finger on it, for some reason B is "more pleasurable" to


listen to than A.




Then how is it that they cannot be distinguished? Your postulate is

clearly that there is a perceived difference in A and B. If you're

saying one is more pleasurable, but can't be perceived as such, then

you're claiming mutually exclusive attributes.





This, if a real phenomenon, would certainly defy any attempts

at testing it




How so? Any double blind preference test would clearly identify a

statistically significant preference for A or B.





Keith


Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that
stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences
in the normal sense. Differences noted (or not noted) between components
in DBT or ABX test act upon the analytical centers of the conscious mind.
On that level, there may be no discernible differences. But on a subliminal
level, these differences might just register as a greater amount of pleasure
for one component over the other. I said earlier that there would be no
way to test this. On further reflection, I think that's wrong. I believe that
a DBT could be easily set-up to test such a hypothesis. If the listener
didn't know which two components to which he or she was listening,
and could listen to the same full recording before switching and then
listen to the other DUT for the entire same recording again, and then
chose either A or B based on the amount of "pleasure" he or she received
from listening to the recording twice, perhaps it would be useful. I know
that I have often compared two amps, two preamps and two DACs that
way, and have often preferred one over the other, without being able
to put my finger on exactly why.

Another example is that I have the Classic Records repressing (on
single-sided, 200 gram virgin vinyl at 45 RPM) of Stravinsky's
"Firebird" by Dorati and the LSO. I also have the same recording on
CD. Both the CD and the remastered LP were overseen by the
work's original producer, Wilma Fine. Being the same original
analog recording from the same master tape, they of course, sound
essentially the same. But for some reason that I cannot explain,
I find myself pulling out the LP to play rather than the
(excellent sounding) CD. With all of its pops and ticks, I find the
LP a much more pleasurable listen than is the CD.

Regards,
Audio_Empire
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] nabob33@hotmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:51:10 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that=

=20
stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as difference=

s=20
in the normal sense.=20


What does that mean? Differences are either apparent to you, or they are no=
t. Is it possible to derive more pleasure from A than B without knowing it?=
Of course not.

Differences noted (or not noted) between components=20
in DBT or ABX test act upon the analytical centers of the conscious mind.


And you know this how? Are you a neuroscientist? Have you used fMRI to map=
subjects' brain activity while undergoing an ABX test? Or are you just inv=
enting "scientific" principles to fit your preconceived notions?

On that level, there may be no discernible differences. But on a sublimin=

al
level, these differences might just register as a greater amount of pleas=

ure
for one component over the other. I said earlier that there would be no
way to test this. On further reflection, I think that's wrong. I believe =

that
a DBT could be easily set-up to test such a hypothesis. If the listener
didn't know which two components to which he or she was listening,
and could listen to the same full recording before switching and then=20
listen to the other DUT for the entire same recording again, and then
chose either A or B based on the amount of "pleasure" he or she received
from listening to the recording twice, perhaps it would be useful.=20


Sure it would be useful. If you did that, you'd find out how wrong you are,=
and we wouldn't ever have to hear about such speculations again.

But here's the catch: You can't just do it once. You have to do it 20 times=
, and prefer the same option at least 15 times out of the 20. Then you'd be=
onto something.

I know that I have often compared two amps, two preamps and two DACs that=

=20
way, and have often preferred one over the other, without being able=20
to put my finger on exactly why.


Unmatched levels? Presentation order bias? Sighted bias? The possibilities =
are endless.=20

Another example is that I have the Classic Records repressing (on=20
single-sided, 200 gram virgin vinyl at 45 RPM) of Stravinsky's=20
"Firebird" by Dorati and the LSO. I also have the same recording on=20
CD. Both the CD and the remastered LP were overseen by the=20
work's original producer, Wilma Fine. Being the same original
analog recording from the same master tape, they of course, sound
essentially the same. But for some reason that I cannot explain,=20
I find myself pulling out the LP to play rather than the=20
(excellent sounding) CD. With all of its pops and ticks, I find the
LP a much more pleasurable listen than is the CD.


You're joking, right? Even in the highly unlikely event that precisely the =
same master was used for both LP and CD production (which would be tantamou=
nt to professional incompetence, IMHO), you're doing a sighted comparison o=
n different devices with differing levels of resolution. Oh, and we know yo=
u don't level-match properly, so there's that, too.

Try making a clean CDR of the vinyl, and compare the three things--LP, CD, =
CDR--with proper bias controls. You'll be replicating this famous experimen=
t:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

Of course, the test subject was a notorious vinyl-hater, so we can write of=
f the results as an obvious function of listener bias. :-)

bob



  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:30:28 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:51:10 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:



Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that


stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences


in the normal sense.




What does that mean? Differences are either apparent to you, or they are not. Is it possible to derive more pleasure from A than B without knowing it? Of course not.



Differences noted (or not noted) between components


in DBT or ABX test act upon the analytical centers of the conscious mind.




And you know this how? Are you a neuroscientist? Have you used fMRI to map subjects' brain activity while undergoing an ABX test? Or are you just inventing "scientific" principles to fit your preconceived notions?



On that level, there may be no discernible differences. But on a subliminal


level, these differences might just register as a greater amount of pleasure


for one component over the other. I said earlier that there would be no


way to test this. On further reflection, I think that's wrong. I believe that


a DBT could be easily set-up to test such a hypothesis. If the listener


didn't know which two components to which he or she was listening,


and could listen to the same full recording before switching and then


listen to the other DUT for the entire same recording again, and then


chose either A or B based on the amount of "pleasure" he or she received


from listening to the recording twice, perhaps it would be useful.




Sure it would be useful. If you did that, you'd find out how wrong you are, and we wouldn't ever have to hear about such speculations again.



But here's the catch: You can't just do it once. You have to do it 20 times, and prefer the same option at least 15 times out of the 20. Then you'd be onto something.



I know that I have often compared two amps, two preamps and two DACs that


way, and have often preferred one over the other, without being able


to put my finger on exactly why.




Unmatched levels? Presentation order bias? Sighted bias? The possibilities are endless.



Another example is that I have the Classic Records repressing (on


single-sided, 200 gram virgin vinyl at 45 RPM) of Stravinsky's


"Firebird" by Dorati and the LSO. I also have the same recording on


CD. Both the CD and the remastered LP were overseen by the


work's original producer, Wilma Fine. Being the same original


analog recording from the same master tape, they of course, sound


essentially the same. But for some reason that I cannot explain,


I find myself pulling out the LP to play rather than the


(excellent sounding) CD. With all of its pops and ticks, I find the


LP a much more pleasurable listen than is the CD.




You're joking, right? Even in the highly unlikely event that precisely the same master was used for both LP and CD production (which would be tantamount to professional incompetence, IMHO), you're doing a sighted comparison on different devices with differing levels of resolution. Oh, and we know you don't level-match properly, so there's that, too.


What part of "I enjoy" the record more than I enjoy the CD" do you not understand, Nab?
Where did I say that this is a test? More importantly when I said "Being the same original
analog recording from the same master tape" I assumed that the reader understood that
this meant that both the CD and LP were of the same performance, made from the same
original master. I said nothing about how many interim steps it might take to to come up
with either. I do know for a fact that Fine digitized the CDs directly from the original tape
her late husband recorded back around 1960. The tape used to master the LP, of course
was a copy. Nobody uses a valuable master tape to cut an LP. Having mastered a number
of records myself, I can tell you that's just standard procedure.


Try making a clean CDR of the vinyl, and compare the three things--LP, CD, CDR--with proper bias controls. You'll be replicating this famous experiment:


Why? I'm not interested in an "experiment" in this case. I merely noted that some recordings
give me more listening pleasure than others, and I gave a couple of examples.



http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm


Will do.

Of course, the test subject was a notorious vinyl-hater, so we can write off the results as an obvious function of listener bias. :-)



bob


Audio_Empire
  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that
stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences
in the normal sense.


Cite?

  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:09:16 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message





Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that


stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences


in the normal sense.




Cite?


Mark DeBellis. If you'd been following the thread you would realize that he postulated
a "theory" that perhaps the differences people hear in equipment that cannot be
measured and doesn't show up in DBTs or bench tests, is possibly subconscious and
subconsciously stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain. I said that this might account
for some phenomena that I myself have experienced, but I can't actually substantiated it
with any other known phenomena.
  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:30:28 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:51:10 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:



Someone is still not "getting it", I think. Subconscious differences that


stimulate the pleasure centers in the brain may not show up as differences


in the normal sense.




What does that mean? Differences are either apparent to you, or they are not. Is it possible to derive more pleasure from A than B without knowing it? Of course not.


http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm



Of course, the test subject was a notorious vinyl-hater, so we can write off the results as an obvious function of listener bias. :-)


Bob, I read the The Teifenbrun Challenge from the URL above and found it very interesting. I could have
predicted the outcome as I have always maintained that the best properly recorded digital (even 16/44.1) is better than the best properly recorded analog (I ought to know, I have shelves full of well
recorded analog tapes that I made of a professional symphony orchestra using an Otari MX5050 analog
tape recorder running at 15 ips and half-track with Dolby A, an Allen and Heath "portable" mixing
console and Sony C-37P and AKG 441 and Sony ECM22P microphones. When I replaced the Otari/Dolby
setup with a Sony PCM-501/Betamax, the quality of the recordings improved by a light-year!).

But, as interesting as the referenced test is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion
as far as I can see. Am I missing some hidden meaning in the test? If so, I guess I'm just too dense
to see it.

Regards
Audio_Empire
  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default A Brief History of CD DBTs

"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
...

I would be interested in your thoughts about the following.

First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two
signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish
one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and
forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening
to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second.

The above is obviously self-contradictory.

If you can't distinguish the two signals by any conscious means, how can you
distinguish them and consciously know it?

If you could somehow elevate the unconscious sensation of greater pleasure
to your consciousness, then you would be able to consciously distinguish
them by that means.

If you can distinguish the two signals by elevating unconsious pleasure to
consciousness, then that would be a conscious form of distinction and your
claim that you can't distinguish them consciously would be falsified.

To put the previous hyptothesis forward, one would need to avoid the
application of fairly simple logic. It could still stand as an statement of
faith or a tenet of some sacred book.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-) George M. Middius[_4_] Audio Opinions 154 May 23rd 08 04:08 AM
A laundry-list of why DBTs are used Steven Sullivan Audio Opinions 12 November 28th 05 06:49 AM
Good old DBTs [email protected] Audio Opinions 5 July 12th 05 06:31 PM
Articles on Audio and DBTs in Skeptic mag Steven Sullivan High End Audio 6 May 17th 05 02:08 AM
Power Conditioners - DBTs? Jim Cate High End Audio 2 November 5th 03 03:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"