Cd treatment fluid - another snake oil? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 02:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Man, give it a rest all ready!



Love the way you threaten someone then add "Cheers". One suggestion, it's "teh Internets", if you don't like someone's response ignore it. Getting into a flame war here will just get you banned...

Scientist, when one accuses another and then throws comments around that just do not add up with what the context of your post is, you have to respond.

SO ask krab to give it a rest as well, but I bet he will respond again.....
And ok going to throw something back at you guys now.
I find it highly amusing that the muscle weakness article was mentioned as being presented at AES, the year was 1980???
Yeah thats a really valid piece of work and what we have is an email discussion and some iffy website to support the muscle weakness "article".

Also I am pretty amazed that AES would not vet Convention Papers before they are presented to see the accuracy or even validity of what is to be talked.
That smacks of lacking professionalism, but then maybe that was the AES of the 80s, did anyone also present religous belief boosts musical hearing?

Cheers
DT
DulcetTones is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

Sigh, Krabapple if you put the request at the very bottom of a lengthy post there is a good chance I would miss it dont you think?


Why not email me asking?
Why not put request at top?

Next time as a suggestion, do a single post asking for the link instead of burying it in the middle or at the end of one of your posts.

This was too obscure for you?

Quote:


WTF?

You pointed us to Dr. Large's page, which contains links to dozens of his publications (actually you pointed to his front page, and told us to then click on publications). You mentioned reading five papers. I'm just asking you to point me to the particular one you're citing, about 'rubato and articulation'.

That was the *entire post*, except for the sentence of yours I quoted distinctly above it. And only one of the other two posts could reasonably be called 'lengthy'. In the shorter of the two, my request was clearly set off in a paragraph of its own. ANYONE can see this by merely clicking those links I gave, so why you're prevaricating like this, I don't know.

Quote:


The point you keep missing is this.
I will repeat once again that engineers involved with speaker crossover and other products use listening techniques and not just measurements.

I've cited the work of Toole and Olive numerous times on AVSforum, so yes, I'm quite aware that listening tests can be a good idea -- and the reasons they can be a good idea particularly for LOUDSPEAKERS is hardly a mystery. The important thing is HOW you do them.

Quote:


This means that we are "possibly" not measuring all the factors.

Or that someone is just not doing enough measurements, or the right ones.

Quote:


If this is so, then the best way to identify if there is something else involved would be to do the test that you keep arguing about (and you keep misunderstanding).

And the best way to do that is with a BLIND listening test.

Quote:


Why?
Because it removes any possible chance of the fact we do not measure everything or that when potentially doing double blind test listeners second guess themselves

.

WTF? A 'sighted' listening test in this situation is pointless.
A 'sighted' listening test doesn't 'correct' any supposed 'second guessing' that happened during a blind test.


Quote:


Futhermore, while other scientific tests covered the 4 fundamentals of brain interaction with music, it is these further variables that are probably of use when someone states they enjoy listening on product A over B.

Really? What 'expressive' feature imparted by a CD cleaner is even remotely analogous to what was tested by Large et al. -- 'rubato, articulation, dynamics', i.e., the uncontroversially audible differences imparted by using a piano's pedals?


Quote:


All the listener does is relax and listen and try to enjoy the music without trying to decide on A/B/X.

There seems to have been no attempt at blinding in Large et al. YOU seem to presume this was to ensure 'relaxation'. I presume it's because the difference between A and B, particularly to musicians familiar with the Chpin Etude, would be quite obvious, making blinding pointless for the purpose of simply grabbing their brain response. Still, I could argue that it would have been interesting to see what differences, if any, might appear in the scans if the subjects didn't know by other means except listening which sample was which.

Quote:



Why is this important?
Because it has clearly been shown that people can fail a polygraph even when they believe they are giving an honest answer.
Ever seen the Truth quiz where they answer embarrassing questions after being profiled.

The simple fact it is just simpler not to have the listener actively do anything but listen.

Yes, that is quite *simple*. Simpleminded. And of course, the subjects in Large et al were hardly 'just listening' by your criteria, the way you or I would at home. That's rather hard to do when youre brain is being scanned for fMRI.


Quote:


Your contention with the article/experiment is that the piece of music is dramatically different with the removal of Rubato and articulation, while my point is that these differences are subtle.

They would not be subtle to musicians with an average of 31 years experience, as used in the study. And I have no 'contention with' the article. My contention is what bogus leaps of logic you're trying make of it re: the question of audible difference between CDPs and CD treatments.

In the article, the signals were, a priori, REAL AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES. Verifiable both objectively and subjectively. Being listened to by by *musicians*. Your claim that they are 'subtle' is far-fetched in this particular setting.


Quote:


The point you miss though is that the subtle changes while keeping contour/rythm/tonality/pitch/meter the response was different enough to actually activate other parts of the brain beyond these, to the point that one engaged the part of the brain involved with:
Error detection, speech and language processing, emotion,etc.

I don't *miss* that point -- I find it utterly irrelevant to the point of, say, THIS thread we're posting in.

Moreover, all the results are phrased in terms of *level of* activity -- not 'all or none'. Scientists are more careful than you give them credit for. There was no mention of activation of the brain 'beyond' areas you seem to think were exclusive to 'contour/rythm[sic]/pitch/meter'. There is only report of significantly higher or lower levels of activation due to different 'treatment', for a given area.


Quote:


Your other contention is that we already know all factors involved in creating music and these can be measured today, therefore there is nothing else being picked up human hearing.

I certainly wouldn't phrase it as clumsily as that. I'm talking about reproduction of sound, not response to *musical performance differences*


Quote:


Personally I do not give a flying .... with regards to who is right. What I am interested in is that currently we do not have all the answers.

Yes, you subjectivists always hang all your hopes on the plain fact that 'science doesn't know everything'. As if that of itself will make two CDPs more likely to sound different, a CD cleaner likely to make an audible difference. Maybe you should BECOME interested in what answers we DO have.

Quote:


Now the point is it should be interesting to see if these other activities in the brain are triggered for the system someone enjoys compared to the other one that objectivists state must sound identical.

The test could be done in exactly same way as it was before, a senior piano major on a digital keyboard plays a piece of music played with rubato and articulation, which in turn is recorded and again has these removed, so melody, harmony, tonality, and rhythm are identical in both.

The playback can be done as they did in the experiment to get a baseline, and then afterwards both can then be played back over the various setups.
In theory the results should be identical to their baseline.

The setup can be quite extensive; PCM/FLAC/cheaper system/more expensive/no CD-player but music server.

After all lets not forget some state they really do feel there is a difference in terms of enjoyment when comparing a CD say to FLAC.

This particular line of drivel assumes that the difference between the sound of a lossless compressed file and its uncompressed source is even remotely analogous to the difference between a recording where the 'bits' have been changed, purposely, in such as way as to make the change AUDIBLE. Compared to flac vs .CD, that is a RADICAL change.
krabapple is offline  
post #183 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 02:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwien View Post

But of COURSE, the legit drug companies NEVER exploit us, right?

Never mind. Fodder for another thread.

As long as the end user is perceiving something, blue pill or red pill, it shouldn't matter, right?
Oops, lets not forget the green pill. Actually, if you mix blue and red, it's purple.
geekhd is offline  
post #184 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 02:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OK I got to respond again because you are making inacurate comments Krab.
See what I mean Scientist

The test was not sited, did you read the experiment paper?
They were not allowed to see what was playing so it is still a blind test.
Also why do you have to confuse the discussion by breaking up your response, it would have more coherence if you structured your response.

Now your bringing this discussion back to CD cleaner.
But remember your the one who threw a hissy fit several posts ago accusing me of deliberately withholding website links (that existed) and then went on about the article-test in a totally wrong way.

Yet again your getting facts wrong.
And OMFG there was mention of additional areas of the brain involved, where the heck do you think I was getting information about the 4 fundamentals and then went on about error-correction/language processing/etc.

Just please do not bother responding anymore because your facts are just plain bloody stupid.

Cheers
DT
DulcetTones is offline  
post #185 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 02:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwien View Post

But of COURSE, the legit drug companies NEVER exploit us, right?

They do...but that's not because of using randomized double blind trials, for pete's sake. Something they're basically forced to do by the government, btw.

Quote:


Never mind. Fodder for another thread.

More like manure.
krabapple is offline  
post #186 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lwien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Arcadia, Calif
Posts: 2,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post


More like manure.

Wow. A bit contentious today, are we?
lwien is offline  
post #187 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 02:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Krab, just for you bud to show more than the 4 fundamentals of processing pitch/contour/rythm/meter.

Quote:


Finally, in the expressive listening condition, higher intensity activation was observed in the right inferior frontal gyrus (BA 44; Fig. 2a), right supramarginal gyrus (BA 40), right angular gyrus (BA 39; Fig. 2b), right inferior parietal lobule (Fig. 2c) and right frontal operculum (Fig. 1a).
These areas play a variety of roles in speech and language processing.
For example, it has been shown that patients with lesions in the right inferior parietal lobe fail to appreciate aspects of a verbal message that are conveyed by prosodic cues [5].
Activation of these areas while listening to expressive music performance implies sharing of neural resources that are important in linguistic function, including the processing of both prosody and semantics.
This observation is also in agreement with previous neurological evidence showing.

And also the additional:

Quote:


Higher intensity of activation was seen in the right anterior cingulate cortex (ACC, BA 24 & 32, Fig. 2c) during the expressive performance.
ACC has been implicated in a variety of functions including emotion, attention, novelty and error detection [3, 5].
Increased activation in ACC may reflect affective or emotional responses of listeners to the expressive performance.
This would be consistent with our additional observation of increased activity in the temporal pole (BA 38,Fig. 1b), which also forms part of the limbic system and has
functional connectivity with ACC [5].

The reason why I think these tests would be useful is that it would be interesting to see if the subtle rubato/articulation parts of the music somehow are lost or lessened in the system that people state they do not like over another.
In other words affecting the interaction with the brain beyond the melody, harmony, tonality, and rhythm that are probably maintained very well.

I have an open mind so why the heck you arguing with me to try and prove that subjective view of yours is right?
I am just proposing something that hopefully would provide a greater insight beyond the current argument put forward by objectivists like you and also the subjectivists.

Cheers
DT
DulcetTones is offline  
post #188 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 02:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 173
[quote=DulcetTones;14320521]OK I got to respond again because you are making inacurate comments Krab.
See what I mean Scientist

Quote:


The test was not sited, did you read the experiment paper?
They were not allowed to see what was playing so it is still a blind test.

Do show me where it says that, please. I see no explicit claim one way or the other. And if it *was* blinded, all the better!

Quote:


Also why do you have to confuse the discussion by breaking up your response, it would have more coherence if you structured your response.

Because your claims are numerous and varied, though almost uniformly silly.

Quote:


Now your bringing this discussion back to CD cleaner.

Which only happens to be .... the SUBJECT OF THE THREAD. Silly me!

Quote:


But remember your the one who threw a hissy fit several posts ago accusing me of deliberately withholding website links (that existed) and then went on about the article-test in a totally wrong way.

Your grasp of recent history is about as good as your grasp of science.

Quote:


Yet again your getting facts wrong.
And OMFG there was mention of additional areas of the brain involved, where the heck do you think I was getting information about the 4 fundamentals and then went on about error-correction/language processing/etc.

I don't know where you get the crap you write, frankly. You certainly aren't careful with scientific claims, as the authors have been . I have the paper (PERCEIVING EMOTION IN EXPRESSIVE PIANO PERFORMANCE:
A FUNCTIONAL MRI STUDY) in front of me. Please, show me where the areas are termed *additional*. All I see is reference to 'higher' or 'greater' or 'increased' levels of activation . E.g. for the supposed 'additional' speech area,

Quote:


Finally, in the expressive listening
condition, higher intensity activation was observed in the right
inferior frontal gyrus (BA 44; Fig. 2a), right supramarginal
gyrus (BA 40), right angular gyrus (BA 39; Fig. 2b), right
inferior parietal lobule (Fig. 2c) and right frontal operculum
(Fig. 1a). These areas play a variety of roles in speech and
language processing.

and the 'additional' error correction area

Quote:


Higher intensity of activation was seen in the right anterior
cingulate cortex (ACC, BA 24 & 32, Fig. 2c) during the
expressive performance. ACC has been implicated in a variety
of functions including emotion, attention, novelty and error
detection [3, 5]. Increased activation in ACC may reflect
affective or emotional responses of listeners to the expressive
performance.

krabapple is offline  
post #189 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 03:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Krab please stop splitting your post it makes the whole discussion difficult to follow not just for me but others.

Anyway I just hope this thread gets locked sometime soon because I am getting fedup having to defend the reasoning from someone who really is being a mule and arguing for the sake of arguing.

Increased level of activity IS THE MEASUREMENT to see how the brain is interacting with the music.
If you read the article, everything they talk about with regards to fRMI involves brain activity, and if a part of the brain is stimulated in response its activity will rise.
Note different parts of the brain as detailed by the previous quote showed how the activity increase occured in certain places, the 4 fundamental ones are known while the new ones caused by expressive music was new.
See the snippet:
Quote:


17]. Thus, this observation was somewhat surprising since these areas were expected to be equally active during both listening conditions. We return to this observation momentarily.

BTW you ARE the one who initiated this bullcr%p, look back and you will see that someone else tried to tell you that when you posted in here attacking me it was out of context to this discussion.
And now we are going full pelt into a lockdown because your forcing me to keep defending myself with your wild comments.
And still your being insulting, for someone who claims to be a subjectivist thats well....

A quote with regards to the sited aspect that your calling into question:
Quote:


Subjects were instructed to close their eyes and carefully listen to the performance.
The subject's head was supported by a comfortable foam mold and
head movement was further minimized using foam padding and forehead restraining straps.

Of course this did not matter because if you read the article you would had known playback was done the same way each time, there was no different souce as the music was recorded straight to the Mac.
Hence there was no chance they could be influenced.

So if it was expanded to include other products you can keep the sources hidden.

Please lock this thread, I am begging someone

Edit:
See post 150 by Scientist that highlights where this topic got de-railed due to I guess the thread in the 20k being locked and you bringing it to here.

Cheers
DT
DulcetTones is offline  
post #190 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 03:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

Krab, just for you bud to show more than the 4 fundamentals of processing pitch/contour/rythm/meter.





And also the additional:


Hilarious, you quoted the same two 'grafs I did.

Quote:



The reason why I think these tests would be useful is that it would be interesting to see if the subtle rubato/articulation parts of the music somehow are lost or lessened in the system that people state they do not like over another.

Why would your silly mind imagine that such OBJECTIVELY GROSS characteristics as rubato and articulation --- which were entirely REMOVED from one of the two versions in the LArge test -- would be audibly affected by system differences such as CDP difference or CD cleaner difference?
Any player that managed to actually audibly change the 'rubato' (timing) of a recording, is *broken*. Any CDP changing the pianistic dynamics (different notes being loud or soft) is *broken* unless it's a compression option. Any CDP changing the articulation (speed of attack on the notes) is *broken*.

Quote:


In other words affecting the interaction with the brain beyond the melody, harmony, tonality, and rhythm that are probably maintained very well.

Your mistake here is to assume that because we can isolate factors already known to be audible, as the products of human performance of music -- rubato, articulation, dynamics -- sufficiently to detect their presence of absence in brain scans, that there might be similar factors at work responsible for difference between CDPs. That's absurd. The scale is simply way, way off. No one in their right mind would posit that rubato, dynamics, and articulation , as applied while playing the piano, are being audibly manipulated by a CDP. (That of course would not prevent an audiophile from doing so).

A CDP is not a musical instrument. It is not being played by a human. PLayback of a CD is not a musical performance. Difference in CDP playback is NOT what Large et al was studying. They were studying how REAL DIFFERENCES between musical performances have different emotional effects.
krabapple is offline  
post #191 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 03:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Actually Krab I quoted from the article not you.
Enough I concede I cannot argue this with you any longer as your spinning back to earlier posts not the last one, in other words your just now trolling to confuse what really has been said and the context.

A shame really because I was trying to promote an idea that should appeal to the objectivists.

Your the hero.
3 cheers for Krab
DulcetTones is offline  
post #192 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 03:12 PM - Thread Starter
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
DT, who says DBT has to be stress causing? It can be done at the testers own environment and at their own pace. Depending on what's being tested, the listener can quickly switch between gears, i.e. cd players or discs (treated vs untreated) with press of a button on the remote. I've done it after having someone else connect the equipments and believe me, I didn't feel stressed at all.

I've read about a speaker cable comparison session where the listeners were told which one is being used and they were able to tell that the expensive cable sounded clearer, improved sound stage and etc compared to cheap copper wire from local hardware store and they went home happy when it was over. What they weren't told before leaving was that the cables were never switched and all along they were listening to that cheap copper wire from local hardware store. Now that's got to be the kind of sound that's audible but not measurable, right?
geekhd is offline  
post #193 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 03:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

DT, who says DBT has to be stress causing? It can be done at the testers own environment and at their own pace. Depending on what's being tested, the listener can quickly switch between gears, i.e. cd players or discs (treated vs untreated) with press of a button on the remote. I've done it after having someone else connect the equipments and believe me, I didn't feel stressed at all.

I've read about a speaker cable comparison session where the listeners were told which one is being used and they were able to tell that the expensive cable sounded clearer, improved sound stage and etc compared to cheap copper wire from local hardware store and they went home happy when it was over. What they weren't told before leaving was that the cables were never switched and all along they were listening to that cheap copper wire from local hardware store. Now that's got to be the kind of sound that's audible but not measurable, right?

I never said DBT were stressful.
I said that people may second guess themselves like they can do when doing a polygraph test for cash.

The test I am talking about removes any active process and any chance of second guessing or influences relating to psychology.
Furthermore it is looking to analyse brain activity beyond the 4 fundamentals that are probably never influenced or affected, thats an assumption until the tests could be done, which may or may not be successful.
Anyway we are seriously de-railing this thread so if interested chat in message.

Cheers
DT
DulcetTones is offline  
post #194 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 03:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

Krab please stop splitting your post it makes the whole discussion difficult to follow not just for me but others.

Anyway I just hope this thread gets locked sometime soon because I am getting fedup having to defend the reasoning from someone who really is being a mule and arguing for the sake of arguing.

Increased level of activity IS THE MEASUREMENT to see how the brain is interacting with the music.
If you read the article, everything they talk about with regards to fRMI involves brain activity, and if a part of the brain is stimulated in response its activity will rise.
Note different parts of the brain as detailed by the previous quote showed how the activity increase occured in certain places, the 4 fundamental ones are known while the new ones caused by expressive music was new.
See the snippet:


Yes, that snippet shows that they were surprised that the activity was not EQUAL for both conditions. That could mean activity in that area was already expected to occur in response to the 'four fundamentals' , what was 'new' was the level of response to 'expression'. That's rather different than claiming that 'expression' lights up new areas where no activity was seen before, which is how your previous posts read. You'd do better to stick to the careful phrasing used by the scientists.


Quote:


BTW you ARE the one who initiated this bullcr%p, look back and you will see that someone else tried to tell you that when you posted in here attacking me it was out of context to this discussion.
And now we are going full pelt into a lockdown because your forcing me to keep defending myself with your wild comments.
And still your being insulting, for someone who claims to be a subjectivist thats well....

A quote with regards to the sited aspect that your calling into question:


You think closing your eyes is what's meant by *blinding*? Much is explained.



Quote:


Of course this did not matter because if you read the article you would had known playback was done the same way each time, there was no different souce as the music was recorded straight to the Mac.
Hence there was no chance they could be influenced.

Of course they could -- especially if one is measuring 'unconscious' response such as blood flow in the brain, a response could be influenced by whatever expectation or preconceived 'notion' about the sound the listeners were supplied with, by the experimenters beforehand (e.g.., 'One of these samples is going to sound poorly compared to the other)'. And not randomizing hte presentation makes it even easier to anticipate which sample is coming up. But in practice, here, it would be difficult if not impossible to 'hide' which sample was which -- the differences were surely so obvious to trained musicians, that it would be pointless. I'm sure they could always tell DIFFERENCE. The best 'blinding' would be to refrain from telling the subjects what had actually been done (or not done) to the two samples -- in other words, tell them they'll be listening to music, but don't tell them anything else (telling them one version will be 'mechanical' for example, could easily bias the emotional response). And that may have been how it was done, it's not clear.
krabapple is offline  
post #195 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 03:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Dude you did read that the source was the same in all playback situations?
I guess they were asked to close eyes to relax.
But as I said if the test was expanded for other products you put a screen up as the source would not always be the same.

And krab, I am not sure how the results could be influenced by them developing pre-conceived ideas even though they were always listening to the same source.
I really do not think that can have any weight because the test was repeated with multiple 30-45 second listening blocks.
If there was any psychological aspects then their results would had been skewed, as it is there were not according to the article.

But I stand by the point the test would be great to do because we have several areas of the brain now measurable, and the fact while one area is consistant when you have subtle nuances there is a big shift.
My point is that having a baseling for both the rythm/contour/etc and also areas activated by expression is we have a potential measurement guideline.

The test would be interesting because we could see if the basic 4 fundamentals change in activity (probably not and would tie in with other results), or if for some reason something is happening to the nuances in a system that switches off and on the other parts of the brain involved with expression and results in someones preference for system A or system B.

Cheers
DT
DulcetTones is offline  
post #196 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 03:41 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 693
It all boils down to accepting or rejecting the scientific method. Does it count that all the technology under discussion here was developed over years of scientific testing and investigation? Well, perhaps not.
FMW is online now  
post #197 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 05:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 439
Wouldn't you get changes in activity and even location if you were prone to auditory focusing albeit unintentional?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #198 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 07:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Wouldn't you get changes in activity and even location if you were prone to auditory focusing albeit unintentional?

Are you asking between different people or for a single individual? Between individuals you get differences, but the basics are the same; same areas, more-or-less the same activity. Not quite sure what you mean by "focusing" but the missing fundamental test is revealing in this respect. When you do a hidden cue test for something inaudible the parts of the brain that activate are not those normally involved with music. The author of the hidden fundamental test hypothesized that if listeners reported missing fundamentals as present then perhaps some other part of the brain would be involved than that in normal auditory processing. This was not the case, the same parts of the brain were activated as when the fundamental was there (though not as consistently). IOW, for auditory illusions the part of the brain that completes the illusion is the same part normally involved in processing of auditory stimuli. For those things that never have been shown to be audible for anyone (eg. in a double blind ABX or otherwise) a completely different part of the brain is involved, and then only if the listener thinks the stimuli is present (even if it isn't).
scientest is offline  
post #199 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 07:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

See post 150 by Scientist that highlights where this topic got de-railed due to I guess the thread in the 20k being locked and you bringing it to here.

I'm still not sure why Krab brought the whole thing up, although given the way you've been arguing it's clear that you think there's more to this than I thought you did. DT, you're really not making sense with most of your posts. I really can't follow much of coherent set of logic or even a consistent argument. I know you think you have something important to say but danged if I can figure out what it is (and no, I don't want another torturous explanation). Krab might have twisted the conversation in a new direction, but you happily grabbed the reins and taken things way, way farther off track than you needed to.

Like I said, give it a rest. You really don't need to reply to every single thing that Krab posts...
scientest is offline  
post #200 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 08:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lwien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Arcadia, Calif
Posts: 2,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, I'm sure as hell gonna give it a rest 'cause you guys are talking wayyyyyy above my head. I can't understand a thing that has been said on this whole page.
lwien is offline  
post #201 of 213 Old 07-18-2008, 09:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwien View Post

Well, I'm sure as hell gonna give it a rest 'cause you guys are talking wayyyyyy above my head. I can't understand a thing that has been said on this whole page.

I thought mine was pretty clear.
geekhd is offline  
post #202 of 213 Old 07-19-2008, 12:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Are you asking between different people or for a single individual? Between individuals you get differences, but the basics are the same; same areas, more-or-less the same activity. Not quite sure what you mean by "focusing" but the missing fundamental test is revealing in this respect. When you do a hidden cue test for something inaudible the parts of the brain that activate are not those normally involved with music. The author of the hidden fundamental test hypothesized that if listeners reported missing fundamentals as present then perhaps some other part of the brain would be involved than that in normal auditory processing. This was not the case, the same parts of the brain were activated as when the fundamental was there (though not as consistently). IOW, for auditory illusions the part of the brain that completes the illusion is the same part normally involved in processing of auditory stimuli. For those things that never have been shown to be audible for anyone (eg. in a double blind ABX or otherwise) a completely different part of the brain is involved, and then only if the listener thinks the stimuli is present (even if it isn't).

For a single individual. Auditory focussing is when you, conciously or subconsiously or some combination of the two, change just how you focus upon what you're listening to. I assume you know that human hearing is a lossy process and it only has a finite capability to process auditory information. As you focus on thing, say a light triangle being played softly in the background, you exclude information from being processed in your brain for long term storage. It's like being at a gathering of people with many sounds and many people talking and you focus to hear what that babe off in the distance is saying. So, even though the music or sounds don't change, the way you pay attention affects what you perceive. With respect to things like cable mongers, CD tweaks, etc. this is like being presented with 'information', and I use the term very loosely, by people and you start to 'hear' things differently. Make sense?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #203 of 213 Old 07-19-2008, 03:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked: 915
somebody please shoot this thread.

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #204 of 213 Old 07-19-2008, 07:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lwien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Arcadia, Calif
Posts: 2,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

For a single individual. Auditory focussing is when you, conciously or subconsiously or some combination of the two, change just how you focus upon what you're listening to. I assume you know that human hearing is a lossy process and it only has a finite capability to process auditory information. As you focus on thing, say a light triangle being played softly in the background, you exclude information from being processed in your brain for long term storage. It's like being at a gathering of people with many sounds and many people talking and you focus to hear what that babe off in the distance is saying. So, even though the music or sounds don't change, the way you pay attention affects what you perceive. With respect to things like cable mongers, CD tweaks, etc. this is like being presented with 'information', and I use the term very loosely, by people and you start to 'hear' things differently. Make sense?

Oooo........Ooooo......something that I can finally comment on.

Gender plays a roll in this also. Females have more of an ability to focus and process multiple sounds than males attributed to the fact that they must hear the cries of their babies while still being able to pay attention to those sounds around them, i.e. being able to process multiple conversations going on around at the same time. Men have a much harder time in doing this.

Females are also more sensitive to high frequencies than males, probably for the same reasons.

I have absolutely NO idea what this has to do with CD Cleaning Fluid, but I'd thought I'd throw it out there nonetheless just because I'd like to pretend that I'm almost as smart as you guys.
lwien is offline  
post #205 of 213 Old 07-19-2008, 07:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

So, even though the music or sounds don't change, the way you pay attention affects what you perceive.

For that matter, DBT is that much better way to listen since it removes other distractions. The reason why blind person has better (use of) hearing.
geekhd is offline  
post #206 of 213 Old 07-19-2008, 09:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

I'm still not sure why Krab brought the whole thing up, although given the way you've been arguing it's clear that you think there's more to this than I thought you did. DT, you're really not making sense with most of your posts. I really can't follow much of coherent set of logic or even a consistent argument. I know you think you have something important to say but danged if I can figure out what it is (and no, I don't want another torturous explanation). Krab might have twisted the conversation in a new direction, but you happily grabbed the reins and taken things way, way farther off track than you needed to.

Like I said, give it a rest. You really don't need to reply to every single thing that Krab posts...

Scientist I am surprised you now say this after you said this earlier about the experiment/article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

That's an interesting one. Doesn't directly address the issues in this thread, but it does point out that the research has moved on beyond the simple mechanisms of hearing and into areas like cognitive mechanisms for more complex phenomena....

Above I give a very clear reason why the new test is valid, it provides a baseline for the 4 fundamentals and as you said above for more complex phenomena.
The test would be interesting because sorry to repeat myself it will track both activities, raising an interesting point "do people hear differences because one system activates the more complex phenomena".

While it may not show anything, it might show that for whatever reason nuances are being lessened (interference/detail resolution/who cares) and this is switching off the "expressive" music side that is activated in the brain.

Personally I really do not care which side "wins", it is about moving forward with scientific testing that removes a lot of the psychological complexities involved with DBT ABX testing/etc with actual parameters we can measure.

Cheers
DT
DulcetTones is offline  
post #207 of 213 Old 07-19-2008, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

I'm still not sure why Krab brought the whole thing up, although given the way you've been arguing it's clear that you think there's more to this than I thought you did. DT, you're really not making sense with most of your posts. I really can't follow much of coherent set of logic or even a consistent argument. I know you think you have something important to say but danged if I can figure out what it is (and no, I don't want another torturous explanation). Krab might have twisted the conversation in a new direction, but you happily grabbed the reins and taken things way, way farther off track than you needed to.

Like I said, give it a rest. You really don't need to reply to every single thing that Krab posts...

I suppose we could always return to talking about the effect Harley's magical CD cleaner fluid.

Btw, it came up in discussion on rec.audio.high-end today. Interestingly Dick Pierce (loudspeaker designer, very credible and technically savvy source, who's been talking audio on the interwebs since the earliest days of Usenet and mailing lists) implied that the whole thing began with an April Fool's prank . The post doesn't show on Google Groups yet but look for it in a day or two.
krabapple is offline  
post #208 of 213 Old 07-19-2008, 10:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
DulcetTones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Krabapple good point but lets face it the cleaner fluid discussion did suck a bit, at least we brought something to the table to argue about

Cheers
DT
DulcetTones is offline  
post #209 of 213 Old 07-20-2008, 08:26 AM - Thread Starter
 
geekhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Looks like we are done.

So, OB_Ron is the only one to state that it's not snake oil.

not snake oil:1
snake oil: many

That's about what I suspected.
geekhd is offline  
post #210 of 213 Old 07-20-2008, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked: 915
Finally, the thread is dead!

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
Reply CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off