[[email protected]]

Our own editor has the last word it seems. In a republish of an article
this week with the title of the subject line he takes another bite at the
apple after his recent visit to this news group. Of course things are a
bit more controlled one observes as to what responses will appear.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/891awsi/

The subtitle offers a familiar bit:

"The proponents of double-blind testing use science as a drunkard uses
a lamppost: for support rather than illumination
8.26.08 | John Atkinson"

This is an article preceeding the Robert Harley AES presentation which
spurred our editor's most recent postings. Here is the nubb of his
remarks:

"The BBC's Hilary Lawson summed it up in 1985: "Science is there to be
used, not to dictate what is true." The basis of scientific method is
to look at how things are, then to design experiments to try to find
the reasons why they are that way. In audio, many insist that such
experiments are only valid when performed double-blind; ie, when
neither experimenter nor subject is aware of the component under test.
The problems with double-blind listening-test techniques are twofold:
First, the subject does not judge the object under test directly--as
in wine tasting, or in the testing of drugs--but only indirectly
through its effect on an information-bearing, emotionally loaded
stimulus--music. Second, the result of any scientific experiment can
only be regarded as valid if all potentially misleading variables have
been eliminated. This, of course, includes those introduced by the
testing technique itself. As Robert Harley convincingly argued in his
July 1990 "As We See It," the nature of listening under double-blind
conditions is sufficiently different from the natural state of
listening to music that results gained under those conditions are at
worst meaningless, at best of limited transportability"

First an appeal to science is made and then we are told why it does not
apply to hifi unless one is sighted during the confirmation phase of the
scientific process because music is involved .
What possible difference would his first point above make if sighted or
blind while listening using that logic? So much for lampposts.

Second a recitation of possible confounding testing artifacts does not in
drawing our attention to them excuse sighted testing on the same grrounds.
In fact it fails to mention that any that might exist blinded are only a
small part of the additional factors sighted testing is known to
introduce. Those possible blinded can be controlled, those sighted can
not.

One presumes we are left only to throw up our hands and rely on - I hear
it I really really do, don't you believe me? This done all the while with
writers whose ears are calibrated and confirmed by blind testing, our
editor is quick to assure us in another context.

As for the Robert Harley remark, does he suggest that if one merely close
one's eyes while listening it is sufficient to distort how one experiences
the perception events in the brain? Would closed eyes prevent him from
detecting a switch to a different bit of hifi gear which while sighted he
would have declared profoundly clear in how it is different?

Thus we have the old pulling of science about one's shoulders for
legitimacy, declaring science flawed in its ability to answer questions
where audio reproduction is concerned, and then declaring that a known
confounding factor producing sighted testing method suffices while a blind
one does not because it could produce confounding factors.

But there is worth one assumes to having the last word in a forum where
other voices can be easily controlled and the hard questions ignored with
the blue pencil readily to hand.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
om...

snip

First an appeal to science is made and then we are told why it does not
apply to hifi unless one is sighted during the confirmation phase of the
scientific process because music is involved .

You've lost all credibility here, as John said no such thing in his article.

snip

Second a recitation of possible confounding testing artifacts does not in
drawing our attention to them excuse sighted testing on the same grrounds.
In fact it fails to mention that any that might exist blinded are only a
small part of the additional factors sighted testing is known to
introduce. Those possible blinded can be controlled, those sighted can
not.

The point John was making there, and has tried t make here, is that setting
up a test that is supremely well designed and run to eliminate all
confounding variables is extremely hard to do because we need to meaure
indirect effect, not direct results. And such design and attention to
detail is not evident in the valst majority of tests that claim to debunk
audible differences. In fact some of those tests themselves, ABX in
particular, are in their very design intervening and confounding variables
by changing the end goal of the "listening". And if you don't think that
is important, we'll have another thread where I'll bring you up to date on
some recent testing done in an allied field.

One presumes we are left only to throw up our hands and rely on - I hear
it I really really do, don't you believe me? This done all the while with
writers whose ears are calibrated and confirmed by blind testing, our
editor is quick to assure us in another context.

No, we are left to read the reviewers opinions, and then if our interest is
aroused, to go listen for ourselves. Why do you find that so threatening?

As for the Robert Harley remark, does he suggest that if one merely close
one's eyes while listening it is sufficient to distort how one experiences
the perception events in the brain? Would closed eyes prevent him from
detecting a switch to a different bit of hifi gear which while sighted he
would have declared profoundly clear in how it is different?

Closed eyes do alter perception....which is why I and a lot of others do
this at concerts. And this is supported by scientific study.

Thus we have the old pulling of science about one's shoulders for
legitimacy, declaring science flawed in its ability to answer questions
where audio reproduction is concerned, and then declaring that a known
confounding factor producing sighted testing method suffices while a blind
one does not because it could produce confounding factors.

Again, this is your strawman. You must wake up in cold sweats at night
after dreaming that somebody actually listened with their eyes open and
preferred one amplifier over another.

But there is worth one assumes to having the last word in a forum where
other voices can be easily controlled and the hard questions ignored with
the blue pencil readily to hand.

Gosh, and here I thought I was somebody with at least partial free will.
Now to find I've been controlled all along by John Atkinson.

I suppose the fact that I grew up in a house with a serious hi-fi system at
the birth of the industry in 1948-52, and that I helped "launch" The
Abso!ute Sound" (rather than "following" it) might be a flaw in this logic?

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
Our own editor has the last word it seems. In a republish of an article
this week with the title of the subject line he takes another bite at the
apple after his recent visit to this news group. Of course things are a
bit more controlled one observes as to what responses will appear.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/891awsi/

It appears no actual scientists, much less any whose field is
psychoacoustics or who work in experimental study of perception,
or any experts on experimental design, were quoted in the editorial.

Not surprisin. It's just typical, shameful high-end editorializin
pandering to a base that 'wants to believe'...and doesn't want to
learn what science already knows about the limits of subjective
evaluation.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:

No, we are left to read the reviewers opinions, and then if our interest is
aroused, to go listen for ourselves. Why do you find that so threatening?

It's not 'threatening', but it is certainly an inadequate way to
determining difference, since the 'confounding factors' are very
much in evidence. Thus the reviews run a strong possibility of
describing *imaginary* effecs.

Regardless of your's and Atkinsons red-herring 'concerns' about
blind testing, it is an indisputable fact that sighted evaluation
of audio -- the standard for audio reviews -- is scientifically
bankrupt.


As for the Robert Harley remark, does he suggest that if one merely close
one's eyes while listening it is sufficient to distort how one experiences
the perception events in the brain? Would closed eyes prevent him from
detecting a switch to a different bit of hifi gear which while sighted he
would have declared profoundly clear in how it is different?

Closed eyes do alter perception....which is why I and a lot of others do
this at concerts. And this is supported by scientific study.

You know what really alters it? Cupping your hands beind your ears.
That actually changes the sound reaching your ears. Closing your eyes
doesn't.

Do you or the high-end care a whit about separating effects that are
subjective, from objective changes to the sound waves?


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

No, we are left to read the reviewers opinions, and then if our interest
is
aroused, to go listen for ourselves. Why do you find that so
threatening?

It's not 'threatening', but it is certainly an inadequate way to
determining difference, since the 'confounding factors' are very
much in evidence. Thus the reviews run a strong possibility of
describing *imaginary* effecs.

Regardless of your's and Atkinsons red-herring 'concerns' about
blind testing, it is an indisputable fact that sighted evaluation
of audio -- the standard for audio reviews -- is scientifically
bankrupt.

Funny then, that so many people have systems they enjoy. All without blind
testing.

As for the Robert Harley remark, does he suggest that if one merely
close
one's eyes while listening it is sufficient to distort how one
experiences
the perception events in the brain? Would closed eyes prevent him from
detecting a switch to a different bit of hifi gear which while sighted
he
would have declared profoundly clear in how it is different?

Closed eyes do alter perception....which is why I and a lot of others do
this at concerts. And this is supported by scientific study.

You know what really alters it? Cupping your hands beind your ears.
That actually changes the sound reaching your ears. Closing your eyes
doesn't.

Strawman alert! Did I say it did?

I said it changed "perception".


Do you or the high-end care a whit about separating effects that are
subjective, from objective changes to the sound waves?

What I care about, at least, is how musically satisfying the reproduction
is, so that I can suspend disbelief enough to close my eyes and reconstruct
the group in front of me. How much of it is objective and how much
subjective is only of theoretical importance to me; what IS important is
that it exist.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

wrote in message
om...

snip

First an appeal to science is made and then we are told
why it does not apply to hifi unless one is sighted
during the confirmation phase of the scientific process
because music is involved .

You've lost all credibility here, as John said no such
thing in his article.

Actually, its quite clear that he did exactly that.

Worship on, dude! ;-)

[[email protected]]

First an appeal to science is made and then we are told why it does not
apply to hifi unless one is sighted during the confirmation phase of the
scientific process because music is involved .

You've lost all credibility here, as John said no such thing in his article.

Read again his first of two points, it is clearly there.

Second a recitation of possible confounding testing artifacts does not in
drawing our attention to them excuse sighted testing on the same grrounds.
In fact it fails to mention that any that might exist blinded are only a
small part of the additional factors sighted testing is known to
introduce. Those possible blinded can be controlled, those sighted can
not.

The point John was making there, and has tried t make here, is that setting
up a test that is supremely well designed and run to eliminate all
confounding variables is extremely hard to do because we need to meaure
indirect effect, not direct results. And such design and attention to
detail is not evident in the valst majority of tests that claim to debunk
audible differences. In fact some of those tests themselves, ABX in
particular, are in their very design intervening and confounding variables
by changing the end goal of the "listening". And if you don't think that
is important, we'll have another thread where I'll bring you up to date on
some recent testing done in an allied field.

I'm weary of this strawman point being thrown up as the first line
defense.
Show us in specific detail for all previous testing where they fail
specifically in those areas you evoke. Account also for the results being
similar regardless of method used, including simple cloth over
connections.
Explain why the only common variable to all is being a blind test. Explain
why if numerous confounding variables were at work that results were not
random among the various instances. More appeal to speculative could be
confounders will not serve.

One presumes we are left only to throw up our hands and rely on - I hear
it I really really do, don't you believe me? This done all the while with
writers whose ears are calibrated and confirmed by blind testing, our
editor is quick to assure us in another context.

No, we are left to read the reviewers opinions, and then if our interest is
aroused, to go listen for ourselves. Why do you find that so threatening?

I don't, I find your comment a rhetorical sidestep to the point. He wants
us to accept his writers bald face subjective assertions as having some
reality about the signal reaching their ears because he does blind testing
on them. The irony is too much after his pains to bad mouth blind
testing.

As for the Robert Harley remark, does he suggest that if one merely close
one's eyes while listening it is sufficient to distort how one experiences
the perception events in the brain? Would closed eyes prevent him from
detecting a switch to a different bit of hifi gear which while sighted he
would have declared profoundly clear in how it is different?

Closed eyes do alter perception....which is why I and a lot of others do
this at concerts. And this is supported by scientific study.

Interesting but irrelevant to the point, During the switch as above the
closed eyes effect would be common to both and not a varible affecting
results.

Thus we have the old pulling of science about one's shoulders for
legitimacy, declaring science flawed in its ability to answer questions
where audio reproduction is concerned, and then declaring that a known
confounding factor producing sighted testing method suffices while a blind
one does not because it could produce confounding factors.

Again, this is your strawman. You must wake up in cold sweats at night
after dreaming that somebody actually listened with their eyes open and
preferred one amplifier over another. Smile, preferred is not the same as
demonstrated difference by listening alone. If the preference is retained
during the blind test then we are onto something about audible
differences, if not we have but only another now boring demonstration of
the brain's ready ability to produce perception artifacts in sighted
contexts. Those same artifacts our editor experienced when they appeared
as predictable when he placed himself in a subjective context known to
readily produce them.

But there is worth one assumes to having the last word in a forum where
other voices can be easily controlled and the hard questions ignored with
the blue pencil readily to hand.

Gosh, and here I thought I was somebody with at least partial free will.
Now to find I've been controlled all along by John Atkinson.

I suppose the fact that I grew up in a house with a serious hi-fi system at
the birth of the industry in 1948-52, and that I helped "launch" The
Abso!ute Sound" (rather than "following" it) might be a flaw in this logic?

Interesting but irrelevant, again. Such a crock of red herrings one would
never encounter if indeed "logic" were at hand. On the other hand, with
that legacy one might wonder at the personal investment coloring one's
judgement and supporting denial in the face of the testing pulling out the
rug from under such views since the late '40's.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 6, 4:50*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
snip

Closed eyes do alter perception....which is why I and a lot of others do
this at concerts. *And this is supported by scientific study.


Could you provide the bibliographic data of such studies, preferably
ones where music was used?


Klaus