Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Good old DBTs
I see that Rahe is again full of postings about blind tests and ABX.
I recall that the topic was banned by the Big Brother some months ago. Oh well perhaps he realised that this hardy perennial is the very life-blood of RAHE. What else has it got to offer? Vinyl better than CD? Or is it vice versa? As usual one sees lot of appeals to the supposed intuitive truths and of course homages to science in the form of "I'm a better scientist than Thou". There is also a lot of ,way over my head, speculations about how the brain works, the nature of perception and similar esoterics. Do they know? Does anyone? The avowed object of DBTs is to eliminate the bugbear of "bias'. As though sighted bias were the only one to overcome before reaching an utopian target of "testing". Human judgments on anything under the sun and especially human aesthetic judgments are nothing but a bundle of biases built into individual perceptions. We are born with them like with different fingerprints and different neuronal DNA and we acquire more through different education, experience, exposure. Hundreds of thousands live happily with the mass-component product. And they judge from a different set of perceptions, assumptions and biases from the devoted "audiophiles- a tiny minorityscorned by the mass-market. But let us assume that eliminating the sighted bias is the true road to the Mecca of testing validly for differences between components. This is the hypothesis " Blinded test in the form of ABX is an appropriate tool to show differences between audio components." The corollary is that the difference thus demonstrated is a necessary basis for preference. Granted. Otherwise what earthly use would it be. The kind of research that I had learnt was based on a simplistic principle: "The proof of pudding is in the eating". If you claim you have a method to achieve a target the onus is on you to show that IT WORKS. It can seem logical, scientific, common-sensical, whatever. No matter. It has to WORK. And it has to work in the field for which you propose it: differences between audio components. The fact that it works in medical, psychological or other research is irrelevant. The royal and only road to validation is through experiment using electronically comparable audio components. To me the problems of the set-up protocol seem insurmountable. What kind and what degree of difference? Between electrically comparable cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, cartridges, speakers, pianos, violins? How do you select an audience representative for gender, age, experience, musical exposure etc. But I may be mistaken and somehow somewhere a convincing research protocol exists. BUT if so when and where was this research done? Did anyone ever reported results using a representative and numerically convincing audience that indeed did distinguish between *any comparable components whatsoever* with statistical validity? References, please? So far all the available, published material on ABX testing of components resulted in the nul, "no difference" outcome. So much for the "Forget the cables- I'll invest in better speakers" tune a la Ferstler et al. Where exactly is the evidence that DBTS are good for distinguishing between speakers? Of Harmon-Kardon research group found abysmal failure to distinguish between speakers in his large group using DBT. But the same people convincingly PREFERRED fuller frequency range speakers. Maybe some of our "scientists" truly believe that all the components are equal. Till they show that their method WORKS to show ANY differences between ANY comparable components others will believe that for many instead of helping the DBTs interfere with recognition of the (so-called) high-end differences. Another unproven "belief" in a sphere of life where beliefs only can possibly exist In no other sphere of aesthetic perception is this chimera of an "objective test" being promoted. You believe Robert Parker on wines not because he has a "method" but because you trust his innate ability to judge backed by experience. Berenson did not write down a "scientific method" to judge if a painting was original or not. People trusted his judgment and paid him for it. And it does not matter a tinker's cuss if millions can not tell the difference between Gallo and Chateau Haut Brion or between Ghirlandaio and a cheap icon. Who is "right"? The two who can or the million who can not? And who cares? They are all happy with their opinions. It is true though that differences between wines and paintings are not taught at the undergraduate engineering courses together with the introductory audio chapters. The craving for a "test" does not stop being comical even though humanly touching. Regards Ludwik Mirabel |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Double blind testing is great for things like artery-clogging
prevention medicines. For audio it's an amusing exercise but since one can't DBT one's own ears or perceptual "brain codec" ultimately it's worth very little. Buy the wine and audio equipment you like best. Some are overpriced by my judgment, yours may differ. If you like the WAVAC 833-or anything by Madrigal or Wilson Audio-and can afford it and think it's great, hey, it's your money. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
L Mirabel wrote I see that Rahe is again full of postings about blind tests and ABX. I recall that the topic was banned by the Big Brother some months ago. Oh well perhaps he realised that this hardy perennial is the very life-blood of RAHE. LoL ! .............and why? It's because the moderator hmm, whats his name... wants to gather his disciples and sycophants under his dress for some quick milking of his one and lonely nipple ... LOL!! Therefore, Ferstler went there and pay him a visit ! lol! Nevertheless, your post seems a direct challenge to those flock. Oh, and about the guy with the dress who happen to appoint himself on that post .............................................. hmmm .................... .................... hmmmm hmmm hm.............. his agenda is showing! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
calcerise wrote Double blind testing is great for things like artery-clogging prevention medicines. For audio it's an amusing exercise but since one can't DBT one's own ears or perceptual "brain codec" ultimately it's worth very little. Buy the wine and audio equipment you like best. Some are overpriced by my judgment, yours may differ. If you like the WAVAC 833-or anything by Madrigal or Wilson Audio-and can afford it and think it's great, hey, it's your money. I seem to recall myself initially thinking back then you were a somewhat passionate fancier in as far as using dbts for the purpose of assuring presence of subtle diff. among audio gears. Of course, I could be wrong. Was I right? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Agree with every word of this cogent, brief posting..
Ludovic Mirabel wrote in message oups.com... Double blind testing is great for things like artery-clogging prevention medicines. For audio it's an amusing exercise but since one can't DBT one's own ears or perceptual "brain codec" ultimately it's worth very little. Buy the wine and audio equipment you like best. Some are overpriced by my judgment, yours may differ. If you like the WAVAC 833-or anything by Madrigal or Wilson Audio-and can afford it and think it's great, hey, it's your money. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |