Folks,

Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well, let's
just call it an anti-science bias.

You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30 MB, 1
hour long) he

www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

Way to go, Arny!

--Ethan

And kudos to you, Ethan, for your article
about audiophile voodoo in the current issue
of Skeptic magazine.

http://www.skeptic.com/


Ethan Winer ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Folks,

Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
test what is audible and what is not. John is known for, um, - well, let's
just call it an anti-science bias.

You can read about the discussion and also download an MP3 file (30 MB, 1
hour long) he

www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

Way to go, Arny!

--Ethan



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Steven and William,

And kudos to you, Ethan, for your article about audiophile voodoo in the
current issue of Skeptic magazine.

like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile essay. I
was flabbergasted that JA actually published it.

Thanks. But just to be clear, my Audiophoolery article is in the current
issue of Skeptic, not Stereophile. Big difference! :-)

--Ethan

Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
test what is audible and what is not.

The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.


John is known for, um, -- well, let's
just call it an anti-science bias.

John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. In
that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.


By the way, like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile
essay. I was flabbergasted that JA actually published it.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:53:13 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

My worthless personal take, based on trying those "tests" quite
a lot at one time, are that the correlation problem is a bitch.

John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. In
that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.

You're percentage is a little low.

By the way, like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile
essay. I was flabbergasted that JA actually published it.

Looking forward very much to reading it. Arny is particularly
elegant and well thought out in his structure, and can express it
convincingly if one accepts his premises. (Which in turn, are all
quite reasonable, well accepted, likely, and internally consistent.)

Chris Hornbeck

It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
methodology.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious
forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what
we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

The publication that he is chief editor of would indicate otherwise.
Furthermore, his poor attempts at justifying a lack of rigourous study of
most subjectivists claims published within Stereophile is further indication
to the contrary. Attempting to dismiss his attitude as nothing more than
closed mindedness that reflects the majority of the population does not deny
the above facts.

John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to
believe.

Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
methodology.

For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
methodology.

For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

Since self-report of 'what sounds good' varies vastly across
the spectrum of listeners, one can hardly call it a reliable
indicator of much at all.

Meanwhile, it's incredibly easy for people to convince themselves
that a tweak makes something 'sound better' -- even when the
tweak does NOTHING AT ALL to the sound. I think Mixerman
told one of those stories in his diaries...twiddling gear that
wasn't even in the signal path, to assuage a record company
exec who wanted to hear more 'air' or 'body' or somesuch.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Since self-report of 'what sounds good' varies vastly across
the spectrum of listeners, one can hardly call it a reliable
indicator of much at all.

Meanwhile, it's incredibly easy for people to convince themselves
that a tweak makes something 'sound better' -- even when the
tweak does NOTHING AT ALL to the sound. I think Mixerman
told one of those stories in his diaries...twiddling gear that
wasn't even in the signal path, to assuage a record company
exec who wanted to hear more 'air' or 'body' or somesuch.

Even science knows that if the mind thinks something to be so then it might
as well be in some instances. And since music enjoyment is purely subjective
this makes doing whatever goofy things some people do (I'm not one of these
people BTW) even if it's totally immeasurable or worthless to others just as
justifiable as anything else. Even if two models of amps have been "proven"
to be equal in a DBS once the person gets it home, if he "wished he had
bought the other model", this will in fact interfere with his enjoyment of
it (and that is a FACT). So just look at DBS as a good way for YOU to find
what works for you and let the other guy go his way. You won't be able to
change him and if he finds joy in it (and he's not hurting anyone) who
cares?

How many times I pretended to twist a knob on a monitor mixer to make a
mucian happy when I knew I was already at the feedback threshold.

In my experience the differences in transducers far far outwiegh
differences in electronics. If you don't like the sound change your
speakers, mics, placement or room acoustics.

As far as amps in a professional setting, durability and reliability
trump super specs almost every time.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more
reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any
form of
objective methodology.

For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

As usual Joe, you've missed the point.

begin over Joe's head

The point is that much of what these high-end snake-oil
artists claims sounds better, doesn't even sound different.

How can something really sound better, if it sounds no
different?

end over Joe's head

Joe, take as much time as you need to come up with a
well-thought-out answer, instead of your typical childish
hip-shots.

Arny Krueger wrote:

For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.


As usual Joe, you've missed the point.

begin over Joe's head

The point is that much of what these high-end snake-oil
artists claims sounds better, doesn't even sound different.

How can something really sound better, if it sounds no
different?

end over Joe's head

Extremes. I am not for the snake oil cables and such either. That ain't
me. Over my head? w.t.f. is that?





Joe, take as much time as you need to come up with a
well-thought-out answer, instead of your typical childish
hip-shots.

You mean such as you did? Could you be any more hypocritical?

On 5/12/05 12:33 AM, in article , "Joe Sensor"
wrote:

Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
methodology.

For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

Hehee... And in a word 'yes' (unless you;re doing the Orwell Thing)

Define
design a testable hypothesis
Test
examine results
peer review for others to attempt to duplicate results
Reassess
refine
Repeat

It's what got HiFi started in the ~30's professional engineering world
It's what keeps us refining and getting closer
It works reliably
NOTHING else does.

Arny,

I listened to most of the debate. It was weird how the other guy didn't get
how an amp isn't flat because you can tell a signature after multiple
passes, but digital conversions can be done many times without a signature
and are by far flatter.\. My question is what sample rate and bit depth are
you using for this?

Julian


"Raul Goyo-Shields" ### wrote in message
. ..
It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
methodology.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious
forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to
what
we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

The publication that he is chief editor of would indicate otherwise.
Furthermore, his poor attempts at justifying a lack of rigourous study of
most subjectivists claims published within Stereophile is further
indication
to the contrary. Attempting to dismiss his attitude as nothing more than
closed mindedness that reflects the majority of the population does not
deny
the above facts.

John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to
believe.

Julian wrote:

I listened to most of the debate. It was weird how the
other guy
didn't get how an amp isn't flat because you can tell a
signature
after multiple passes, but digital conversions can be done
many times
without a signature and are by far flatter.

Yes, its interesting that good converters can be that much
better than even really good amps.

My question is what sample rate and bit depth are you
using for this?

I did the work I described at HE2005 with a Card Deluxe
running at 24/96.

I first established the transparency of the Card Deluxe with
these tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm

and moved on to these amplifier tests:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm

If I did it all over again today, my candidate cards would
be the M-Audio Audiophile 24/192 and/or the LynxTWO. Not
because there's anything wrong with the Card Deluxe, but
these are better price-performers, one much more expensive
but with far better performance, and one with similar
performance, but about half the price.

It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form
of objective methodology.

Double-blind testing is a subjective form of testing. There is no proved
correlation between what one hears in the tests and what one hears when actually
listening to music. (The same thing is true of "subjectivist" reviewing, as
well.)

William Sommerwerck wrote:
It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more
reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any
form
of objective methodology.

Double-blind testing is a subjective form of testing.
There is no
proved correlation between what one hears in the tests and
what one
hears when actually listening to music. (The same thing is
true of
"subjectivist" reviewing, as well.)

This sounds similar to a key point from the Debate, but I
think it overstates the relevant facts by quite a bit.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form
of objective methodology.

Double-blind testing is a subjective form of testing. There is no proved
correlation between what one hears in the tests and what one hears when actually
listening to music.

This is essentially saying that a controlled experiment result should replicate
to an uncontrolled experiment result, if we are to consider it valid.

Do you see how backwards that is?





--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

"William Sommerwerck"


The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious
forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what
we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.


** Pure gobbledgook.


John is known for, um, -- well, let's
just call it an anti-science bias.

John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to
believe.


** Believing what you want to believe in spite of what the evidence
indicates is about as anti-science as it gets.


In that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.


** Your assertions are based on fallacies, use false logic and are plain
wrong.





............... Phil

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile
magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method to
test what is audible and what is not.

The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to what we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

That you think it *should* correlate to that, suggests you don't get why
blind tests are needed in the first place. What you 'actually' hear
when you sit down to listen is *NOT* a good reference point, when differences
are 'actually' subtle or nonexistant.

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only* arbiters of what you are
hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when you sit down and listen in casual
evulation, is an amalgam of truly audible plus other non-audible 'confounding'
factors. Science may not be foolproof, but the existnce of such factors
has been proved about as well as *anthing* has been. It's why scientific
investigations of all sorts routinely employs bias controls. Cognitive/perceptual
confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.



John is known for, um, -- well, let's
just call it an anti-science bias.

John isn't anti-science -- he just wants to believe what he wants to believe. In
that respect, he's no different from Arny, or 99% of the human race.

By the way, like Steven Sullivan, I very much appreciated your Stereophile
essay. I was flabbergasted that JA actually published it.

Stereophile essay? I'm talking about an article in *Skeptic*. I highly doubt
JA would have published it! If he did, my respect for Stereophile would
increase radically.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:28:46 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only* arbiters of what you are
hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when you sit down and listen in casual
evulation, is an amalgam of truly audible plus other non-audible 'confounding'
factors. Science may not be foolproof, but the existnce of such factors
has been proved about as well as *anthing* has been. It's why scientific
investigations of all sorts routinely employs bias controls. Cognitive/perceptual
confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.

Brilliant; possibly the best I've ever read. But now define "hearing".
And then define the color red.

Ya just can't get there from here, is the problem. I'll be very
interested in your comments; thanks; and please don't take my
comments negatively; anything but.

But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
matter for music?

Just some thoughts. We human beans have such a desperate need to
quantify and simplify the overwhelming complexity of the external
world that the need can overwhelm the better angels of our modeling
nature. "Trust, but verify".

Chris Hornbeck

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
matter for music?

I'm sure thay do. It only worries me when these factors might persuade
me to part with $2500 for a pair of interconnects because those factors
have persuaded me that they sound better.

Has anyone tried a non-blind "trick" test where the cheap and expensive
cable were disguised as each other, or the guts of the amplifiers
swapped between the boxes so the listener really thought he was
listening to device A when it was device B?

Anahata

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:17:26 +0100, Anahata
wrote:

Has anyone tried a non-blind "trick" test where the cheap and expensive
cable were disguised as each other, or the guts of the amplifiers
swapped between the boxes so the listener really thought he was
listening to device A when it was device B?

I think this is the point of calling it snake oil. They are cheap
stuff wrapped in expensive packaging and pricetag.

"Anahata" wrote in message
...
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
matter for music?

I'm sure thay do. It only worries me when these factors might persuade me
to part with $2500 for a pair of interconnects because those factors have
persuaded me that they sound better.

Has anyone tried a non-blind "trick" test where the cheap and expensive
cable were disguised as each other, or the guts of the amplifiers swapped
between the boxes so the listener really thought he was listening to
device A when it was device B?


All of the above.

geoff

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:28:46 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only* arbiters of what you are
hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when you sit down and listen in casual
evulation, is an amalgam of truly audible plus other non-audible 'confounding'
factors. Science may not be foolproof, but the existnce of such factors
has been proved about as well as *anthing* has been. It's why scientific
investigations of all sorts routinely employs bias controls. Cognitive/perceptual
confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.

Brilliant; possibly the best I've ever read. But now define "hearing".
And then define the color red.

Why? Such semantic exercises are beside the point...which is the
*fact* of the existence of 'confounding factors', and thus the *need*
to account for them as possible cause of a perception. That there can
be different subjective definitions of 'hearing' and 'red' doesn't seem to
halt the scientific study of perception in its tracks, does it?

Ya just can't get there from here, is the problem. I'll be very
interested in your comments; thanks; and please don't take my
comments negatively; anything but.

But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
matter for music?

They *absolutely* matter in the sense they they can explain why
two of the *same thing* can be reported as *different*. They
*absolutely matter* in the sense that they can't be ignored...
alas, nor can they be *trusted*.

Orchestral auditions are often done 'blind' these days. Are
you suggesting the judges are 'missing out' on some
factor that 'matters' to the *sound*, by doing this.

Blinding simply means : making sure the listener cannot
know the identity of the souce, *other than* by what he *hears*.


Just some thoughts. We human beans have such a desperate need to
quantify and simplify the overwhelming complexity of the external
world that the need can overwhelm the better angels of our modeling
nature. "Trust, but verify".

'Doubt, unless verified' gives more reliable answers.



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:28:46 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a
mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only* arbiters of what you are
hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when you sit down and listen in
casual
evulation, is an amalgam of truly audible plus other non-audible
'confounding'
factors. Science may not be foolproof, but the existnce of such
factors
has been proved about as well as *anthing* has been. It's why
scientific
investigations of all sorts routinely employs bias controls.
Cognitive/perceptual
confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.

Brilliant; possibly the best I've ever read. But now define "hearing".
And then define the color red.

Why? Such semantic exercises are beside the point...which is the
*fact* of the existence of 'confounding factors', and thus the *need*
to account for them as possible cause of a perception. That there can
be different subjective definitions of 'hearing' and 'red' doesn't seem to
halt the scientific study of perception in its tracks, does it?


Another crossover from RAHE who doesn't ever acknowledge the possibility
that the test itself may alter the ability to hear (from a musical
evaluation standpoint) or examine the underlying premises of the test
itself.


Ya just can't get there from here, is the problem. I'll be very
interested in your comments; thanks; and please don't take my
comments negatively; anything but.

But perhaps the "cognitive/perceptual confounding factors" actually
matter for music?

They *absolutely* matter in the sense they they can explain why
two of the *same thing* can be reported as *different*. They
*absolutely matter* in the sense that they can't be ignored...
alas, nor can they be *trusted*.


However, they also cannot be allowed to result in choice of a test that
destroys the very thing supposedly being tested. False negatives are hardly
better than possible sighted bias.


Orchestral auditions are often done 'blind' these days. Are
you suggesting the judges are 'missing out' on some
factor that 'matters' to the *sound*, by doing this.

Blinding simply means : making sure the listener cannot
know the identity of the souce, *other than* by what he *hears*.


The difference is: their is nothing in the test setup to confuse the
hearing, in addition to eliminating sight bias.



Just some thoughts. We human beans have such a desperate need to
quantify and simplify the overwhelming complexity of the external
world that the need can overwhelm the better angels of our modeling
nature. "Trust, but verify".

'Doubt, unless verified' gives more reliable answers.



Either way, *verify* is the key...and it has never been done adequately for
the use of DBT'ng as the end all of audio evaluation, as you would have it.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are

Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a perfectly valid summary
of how ABX works too...

Anahata

Anahata wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are


Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a perfectly valid summary
of how ABX works too...

On the contrary, it tells you in short order just how much
trust you dare have in your ears.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On Thu, 12 May 2005 01:56:24 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:



Anahata wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are


Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a perfectly valid summary
of how ABX works too...

On the contrary, it tells you in short order just how much
trust you dare have in your ears.

Both camps rely on what [they believe] their ears percieve, they
just use different circumstances and methods to decide what that
perception is.



Bob

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Anahata wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are

Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a perfectly valid summary
of how ABX works too...

Let's complete the sentence, shall we?

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are, *when they aren't allowed to be the only arbiters of what you are
hearing.*

(emphasis added)

Subjectivists distort the meaning of 'trust your ears'. They really mean,
'trust your impressions and assumptions'. Because if, hey, something
'sounds' different, it *must* be due to the gear, not the listener, right?


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Anahata wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to
use as a
mantra, reflects a fundamental overestimation of how
'trustworthy'
your ears
are

Ironic, considering that "trust your ears" is a perfectly
valid
summary of how ABX works too...

Let's complete the sentence, shall we?

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to
use as a
mantra, reflects a fundamental overestimation of how
'trustworthy'
your ears
are, *when they aren't allowed to be the only arbiters
of what you
are hearing.*

(emphasis added)

Subjectivists distort the meaning of 'trust your ears'.
They really
mean, 'trust your impressions and assumptions'. Because
if, hey,
something 'sounds' different, it *must* be due to the
gear, not the
listener, right?

In the hands of so-called subjectivists like Harry Lavo,
"Trust your ears" becomes "Trust your ears and eyes".

That you think it *should* correlate to that, suggests you don't get why
blind tests are needed in the first place. What you 'actually' hear
when you sit down to listen is *NOT* a good reference point, when differences
are 'actually' subtle or nonexistant.

See my other post.

On 5/12/05 1:28 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are,

Not so, if we want to keep this a working discussion (and leave no loopholes
to wilgle throuhj semantically!) then it's about letting
'Trust Your Ears'
stand in for
'Trust What You Interpret'
DBT indeed is BIULT around the sole idea of Trusting Your Ears... And not
allowing in your eyes or other evidiciary confusing elements

Your ears are damned good...
Along with the processing parts of the brain and the emotional and
pattern-addicted parts of the brain and mind it's a system that is
INCREDIBLY good at resolving anomolies but indeed can be fooled easily IF WE
LET IT.
Maybe these folks need to watch Rashomon...

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 5/12/05 1:28 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are,

Not so, if we want to keep this a working discussion (and leave no
loopholes
to wilgle throuhj semantically!) then it's about letting
'Trust Your Ears'

Please stiop cross-posting this stuff. We really are not remotely
interested in it.

geoff

On Sat, 14 May 2005 01:25:10 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
wrote:


"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...

...

'Trust Your Ears'

Please stiop cross-posting this stuff.

Huh? As far as I see, there's no crossposting, the original and all
followups are only on rec.audio.pro.

We really are not remotely
interested in it.

Oh, it's just the CONTENT you're objecting to. Well, "we" could go
back to talking politics...

geoff

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

SSJVCmag wrote:
On 5/12/05 1:28 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are,

Not so, if we want to keep this a working discussion (and leave no loopholes
to wilgle throuhj semantically!) then it's about letting
'Trust Your Ears'
stand in for
'Trust What You Interpret'

if you'd kept ther rest of my sentence in that quote, you'd see I said
the same thing.

DBT indeed is BIULT around the sole idea of Trusting Your Ears... And not
allowing in your eyes or other evidiciary confusing elements

if you'd kept the rest of my sentence in that quote, you'd see I said the
same thing.



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
Stereophile
magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the scientific method
to
test what is audible and what is not.

The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain obvious
forms of
bias does not mean the test results are accurate or are correlated to
what we
"actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

That you think it *should* correlate to that, suggests you don't get why
blind tests are needed in the first place. What you 'actually' hear
when you sit down to listen is *NOT* a good reference point, when
differences
are 'actually' subtle or nonexistant.

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to use as a mantra,
reflects a fundamental overestimation of how 'trustworthy' your ears
are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only* arbiters of what you are
hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when you sit down and listen in
casual
evulation, is an amalgam of truly audible plus other non-audible
'confounding'
factors. Science may not be foolproof, but the existnce of such factors
has been proved about as well as *anthing* has been. It's why scientific
investigations of all sorts routinely employs bias controls.
Cognitive/perceptual
confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.


Good science (as opposed to bad or pseudo-science) also pays excruciating
attention to the design and underlying premises/assumptions at work in the
test, to make sure that the scientist is measuring what he thinks he is
measuring. Arny and other DBT advocates have an almost-religious belief in
the efficacy of dbt's for any and everything audio..despite the huge
difference between measuring "sound" which is pretty much a physical
property, or "artifacts" which are discrete effects that one can train to
hear, and "music" which modern brain explorations have shown is hardwired in
some aspects into the brain and totally non-intuitive as to how things work.

Even the simple assumption that there are known thresholds that Arny and
Steven and others hold as "proof" that differences cannot exist if ABX
testing shows a null, now appears dubious as recent research suggest that
the brain "pre-conditions" the auditory nerves to focus on certain selective
affects depending on the context of what it is expecting and can exceed
previously thought thresholds in doing so (note that this is context
dependent and not likely to be operable in quick-switch "snippet" testing)..

Furthermore, open ended evaluation of equipment reproducing music doesn't
come with flags or signs saying "listen for this effect" or "catch how well
I handle this". The open-ended evaluative process requires the context of
the music itself and relaxed, unconscious exposure to allow the relevant
felicities or abrogation from what sounds "real" to emerge. Then also
factor in that psychophysiological research has show that the emotional
response triggered involuntarily by some aspects of music (and presumably
with music reproduction as well) do correlate with statistically significant
accuracy to higher "ratings" for the musical experience. And they take as
much as twenty seconds to build or disappear and only develop "in context".
Finally, factor in as well the recent finding that the ear nerves themselves
apparently have a "memory" for music apart from the remainder of the brain
such that they literally can "fill in the blanks" of music which is known,
even when the sound is physically cut off, and you can see how dubious a
simple dbt test becomes as a suitable test for open-ended evaluation of
equipment quality when reproducing music. Vastly different than listening
for known artifacts or broadband signal levels. A real scientist would be
asking more questions than ever today, and exploring the implications for
testing protocols, not promoting a "one-size-fits-all" solution and its
accompanying web site.

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

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York
Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson,
editor of
Stereophile magazine. Arny is well known for his
support for the
scientific method to test what is audible and what is
not.

The scientific method is not foolproof.

It depends on the quality of the application.

Simply removing certain
obvious forms of bias does not mean the test results are
accurate
or are correlated to what we "actually" hear when we sit
down to
listen.

Amen, brother!

Frankly, one of the easiest things to do is to do a test
that is blind, but otherwise so flawed that its just a demo
or an exercise.

That you think it *should* correlate to that, suggests
you don't get
why blind tests are needed in the first place. What you
'actually'
hear when you sit down to listen is *NOT* a good
reference point,
when differences are 'actually' subtle or nonexistant.

I think now we're talking about naive perception versus
informed perception. Golden-Eared audio is generally based
on the idea that if it is perceived, there is a specific
underlying physical cause, which is zippy new piece of
equipment at hand, say a SACD player + recording.

This 'trust your ears' business that audiophiles tend to
use as a
mantra, reflects a fundamental overestimation of how
'trustworthy'
your ears are, when they aren't allowed to be the *only*
arbiters of
what you are hearing. What you 'actually' perceive when
you sit down
and listen in casual evulation, is an amalgam of truly
audible plus
other non-audible 'confounding' factors. Science may not
be
foolproof, but the existnce of such factors has been
proved about as
well as *anthing* has been. It's why scientific
investigations of
all sorts routinely employs bias controls.
Cognitive/perceptual
confounding factors are *insidious* and *pervasive*.

Exactly. To believe otherwise is to be uselessly naive.

Good science (as opposed to bad or pseudo-science) also
pays
excruciating attention to the design and underlying
premises/assumptions at work in the test, to make sure
that the
scientist is measuring what he thinks he is measuring.

Exactly. So, lets do this with audiophile equipment
auditions as practiced by say Stereophile per their
"Listener's Manifesto". One of their underlying assumptions
exactly contradicts Mr. Sullivan's wonderful paragraph
above.

Arny and other DBT advocates have an almost-religious
belief in the efficacy
of dbt's for any and everything audio..despite the huge
difference
between measuring "sound" which is pretty much a physical
property,
or "artifacts" which are discrete effects that one can
train to hear,
and "music" which modern brain explorations have shown is
hardwired
in some aspects into the brain and totally non-intuitive
as to how
things work.

This would be some baseless assertion by Harry Lavo, who
proved to the HE2005 debate witnesses that he doesn't even
know the difference between a question and a declaration.
Conside the source and dismiss it unless you have a lot of
time to waste.


Even the simple assumption that there are known thresholds
that Arny
and Steven and others hold as "proof" that differences
cannot exist
if ABX testing shows a null, now appears dubious as recent
research
suggest that the brain "pre-conditions" the auditory
nerves to focus
on certain selective affects depending on the context of
what it is
expecting and can exceed previously thought thresholds in
doing so
(note that this is context dependent and not likely to be
operable in
quick-switch "snippet" testing)..

Sorry guys,but this sentence is obviously written at or
above the 39th grade level. I only did made it through 2
years of graduate school, which puts me somewhere under the
20th grade reading level. Not only does Harry not know the
difference between a question and a declaration, he doesn't
know the difference between a sentence, a paragrpah, and a
hopeless run-on.

Harry, can you puhleeze give us the Classics Illustrated
version of this killer paragraph of yours? ;-)

.. "listen for this effect" or
"catch how well I handle this". The open-ended
evaluative process
requires the context of the music itself and relaxed,
unconscious
exposure to allow the relevant felicities or abrogation
from what
sounds "real" to emerge. Then also factor in that
psychophysiological research has show that the emotional
response
triggered involuntarily by some aspects of music (and
presumably with
music reproduction as well) do correlate with
statistically
significant accuracy to higher "ratings" for the musical
experience.
And they take as much as twenty seconds to build or
disappear and
only develop "in context". Finally, factor in as well the
recent
finding that the ear nerves themselves apparently have a
"memory" for
music apart from the remainder of the brain such that they
literally
can "fill in the blanks" of music which is known, even
when the sound
is physically cut off, and you can see how dubious a
simple dbt test
becomes as a suitable test for open-ended evaluation of
equipment
quality when reproducing music. Vastly different than
listening for
known artifacts or broadband signal levels. A real
scientist would
be asking more questions than ever today, and exploring
the
implications for testing protocols, not promoting a
"one-size-fits-all" solution and its accompanying web
site.

Reading Harry Lavo is like reading William S Burroughs. ;-(

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
Stereophile magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the
scientific method to test what is audible and what is not.

The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain
obvious forms of bias does not mean the test results are accurate or
are correlated to what we "actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

Absolutely correct. The scientific method systematically proves or
disproves a single fact at a time within the limits of the control factors.
It cannot be extended to say that no remaining untested factors exist.

I will put my faith in those facts proven by this method, and leave the
rest to wallow in the "snake oil" category.

Carey Carlan wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

Last week at the Home Entertainment Show in New York Arny Krueger
participated in a panel discussion with John Atkinson, editor of
Stereophile magazine. Arny is well known for his support for the
scientific method to test what is audible and what is not.

The scientific method is not foolproof. Simply removing certain
obvious forms of bias does not mean the test results are accurate or
are correlated to what we "actually" hear when we sit down to listen.

Absolutely correct. The scientific method systematically proves or
disproves a single fact at a time within the limits of the control
factors. It cannot be extended to say that no remaining untested
factors exist.

Quibble here. Science doesn't prove much. They correct terms are usually
"verified" or falsified. The word "proof" is often used, but its not
what scientists actually mean.


Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.