Originally Posted by DulcetTones
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?
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.
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.
This means that we are "possibly" not measuring all the factors.
Or that someone is just not doing enough measurements, or the right ones.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
levels of activation due to different 'treatment', for a given area.
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*
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.
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.