DBT of CD Players - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 1,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Here is yet another audiophile myth that lacks empirical support. For the kinds of differences one actually finds among audio components (as opposed to the kinds of differences some people imagine finding among audio components), the most sensitive tests isolate brief passages that highlight a potential difference and allow immediate switching between the two choices in the test. Any test that doesn't allow such switching is pretty hopeless, actually.

That doesn't mean you can't use long-term listening to try to find those differences. But once you've decided that the difference is, say, in the timber of violins, the ideal test will involve switching back and forth relatively quickly while listening to a solo violin performance.

Putting aside the first sentence regarding "empirical support," I disagree with you entirely, and while your comments are set forth like they are an authoritative statement of absolute fact, they appear to be merely your opinion. My opinion, based on my own listening experience, is that longer term listening enables one to become intimately familiar with how a certain selection sounds with certain equipment, just as ,for example, one might become intimately familiar with the voice of a sibling, such that any slight change is immediately recognizable. Others have expressed similar opinions based on their experiences.

With respect to the first sentence, I don't know if there is any empirical support either way. Indeed, the very discussion concerns the difficulty of dealing in an "empirical" manner with long term listening experiences.
smitty is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 04:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,979
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 600
Yet, you have no way of eliminating or controlling for biases, smitty. How do you reconcile that?

"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 online now  
post #93 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 04:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Quote:


With respect to the first sentence, I don't know if there is any empirical support either way.

Well, of course you don't. That's the problem. You're stating "opinions" about things that are not about matters of opinion--they are matters that can be and have been subjected to empirical verification.

Now, you're free to believe things that have been refuted empirically, and even to opine about those beliefs in public. But expect to get called on it.

Quote:


Indeed, the very discussion concerns the difficulty of dealing in an "empirical" manner with long term listening experiences.

There is no difficulty testing "long term listening experiences," if you know the science. That seems to be the difficulty.

Here's how the test typically works. You find a "Just Noticeable Difference"--something that can be detected in a DBT, but not easily. Then, instead of switching immediately between the two sounds, you introduce a time gap, and measure how large a gap you can insert before subjects can no longer detect that difference. For JNDs, the time gap that interferes with detection can be well under a second. One second.

Now, if that is true, how in the world can you listen to a new CD player for three weeks and then decide that it's different than the CD player you replaced it with? That's why "long-term listening" is an audiophile myth.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #94 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 04:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 1,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Yet, you have no way of eliminating or controlling for biases, smitty. How do you reconcile that?

I'm not sure what you mean by "reconcile," but I guess you mean, how does one fully trust a long-term listening judgment of the type I'm talking about if indeed it is "sighted" due to the difficulty of doing a long term listening comparison blind.

I think the best you can do, unless someone comes up with a way to do a long-term blind test, is try to approach any such judgment with a skeptical mind, and try to make the best judgment you can, taking into account those factors that would tend to bias you in either direction. I don't think it's completely beyond the capacity of intelligent, rational people to do this.

I also think that, when one concludes there is a difference, one has to really evaluate whether the differences are due to biases that could not be eliminated, whether they persist over time, (which if they don't may just mean you're in a good mood that day), etc. I agree that we often think we hear differences that really don't exist.

But I also think that some differences are not so subtle that it precludes a reasonable determination that there are differences notwithstanding the biases we are talking about. The Bel Canto DAC 2 simply does not sound like the Electrocompanient DAC on Nora Jones "Come Away With Me" album, for example. If you listen to the Bel Canto DAC 2 for a long time and then switch to the Electrocompanient DAC, I think you will find that the presentation on that album is noticeably different. At least it is different enough that I think one can conclude it is an actual difference. (Personally, I preferred the Bel Canto's presentation on that particular album even though I kept the Electrocompanient DAC.)

But my point is that I think that one can attain a fairly high degree of confidence that some differences are real, if one takes steps to try to be objective, and if the differences are of a certain magnitude to the listener after careful evaluation.
smitty is offline  
post #95 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 04:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post

You have a way of saying things that sounds like you are attacking the person you are having a discussion with. Perhaps you don't realize it.

In any event, I'll respond to two things you said.

I'm not following you. My point is that to hear the differences, it is helpful (for me at least) to have a long term listening baseline. I didn't say that once you listen long term, you can then hear the differences between players by switching back and forth on a short-term basis.

Why wouldn't you? What purpose does the 'long term listening baseline' serve, if not to be a familiar sonic reference? If your 'long term baseline' is player A, then if player B really sounds different, it should be a cinch to ABX it.

Aside from which, it is clearly NOT necessary for listeners to do 'long term listening' to both A AND B, in order to believe they hear a difference between them. It happens all the time in audio reviews.


Quote:


And it's hard to set up a long-term listening experience not knowing what you are listening to, or to arrange for someone to switch out that player at some point (and level match it) without you knowing it.


Again, are you claiming that a difference that is established in the listeners mind after 'long term' sighted listening, disappears during the first subsequent short term listening session?
So that every single session, including the ABX trials, must involve 'long term listening" in order for the difference to be re-established?

That is QUITE at odds with what audiophiles usually report.

And what, btw, is the 'proper' duration of 'long term' listening, for this difference to manifest? Hours? Days?
krabapple is offline  
post #96 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 1,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Well, of course you don't. That's the problem. You're stating "opinions" about things that are not about matters of opinion--they are matters that can be and have been subjected to empirical verification.

Now, you're free to believe things that have been refuted empirically, and even to opine about those beliefs in public. But expect to get called on it.


There is no difficulty testing "long term listening experiences," if you know the science. That seems to be the difficulty.

Here's how the test typically works. You find a "Just Noticeable Difference"--something that can be detected in a DBT, but not easily. Then, instead of switching immediately between the two sounds, you introduce a time gap, and measure how large a gap you can insert before subjects can no longer detect that difference. For JNDs, the time gap that interferes with detection can be well under a second. One second.

Now, if that is true, how in the world can you listen to a new CD player for three weeks and then decide that it's different than the CD player you replaced it with? That's why "long-term listening" is an audiophile myth.

Can you describe or link me to the tests involving JND's that you reference above? You're not talking about the tests that ask people to distinguish between test tones are you? Your reference to the detection level being under one second seems to suggest that type of test. That's an entirely different scenario, and the reliance on those tests is one of the skeptics "myths."

[BTW, pronouncing something an "audiophile myth" doesn't really help your argument or persuade. It's just another ipse dixit, and with all due respect, you seem to rely on that convention an awful lot. Tell us why something is wrong, don't just say it's an "audiophile myth." ]

If you're not talking about JND's involving test tones, but actual tests involving music, tell me more about those and we can continue the discussion. But it seems to me we are talking about two different things -- as you and I often are.
smitty is offline  
post #97 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post

Putting aside the first sentence regarding "empirical support," I disagree with you entirely, and while your comments are set forth like they are an authoritative statement of absolute fact, they appear to be merely your opinion.

No, they're actually supported by psychoacoustic research: audio memory favors comparing short illustrative samples for discrimination of smallest difference. That method -- zeroing in on an 'signature' sound, and using that snippet in ABX -- has proven extremely productive in mp3 development. And really, 'audiophiles' use the same concept, when they recommend using certain 'revealing' tracks -- or even portions of tracks -- to audition gear.


Quote:


My opinion, based on my own listening experience, is that longer term listening enables one to become intimately familiar with how a certain selection sounds with certain equipment, just as ,for example, one might become intimately familiar with the voice of a sibling, such that any slight change is immediately recognizable. Others have expressed similar opinions based on their experiences.


OK, great, let's assume you've made yourself intimately familiar with how a certain selection sounds with certain equipment, through longer term listening (no duration specified yet...). Now you swap in a different CDP (for ease of comparison, connect it to another input so you can easily switch between both), level match it, but leave everything else the same. Same listening setting, same selection. Chances are high it will sound different to you right away (chances are high it would sound different to you even without the 'long term' listening, but let's stick with your claim). And remain so after longer listening. But the likelihood remains significant that you're deluding yourself. How to verify that the difference you hear is real? Have someone help you do an ABX. 20 trials should do it. You should NOT need to do more 'long term' listening at this point, right?


Quote:


With respect to the first sentence, I don't know if there is any empirical support either way. Indeed, the very discussion concerns the difficulty of dealing in an "empirical" manner with long term listening experiences.

Yeah, you don't know, you don't know. That's another thing 'audiopphiles' do...they imagine their own 'not knowing;' says something about the state of the science. But science marches on, and you not knowing about the evidence, doesn't mean it's not out there. Sensory testing is a century or so old. It's how things like JNDs were established.
krabapple is offline  
post #98 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post


If you're not talking about JND's involving test tones, but actual tests involving music, tell me more about those and we can continue the discussion. But it seems to me we are talking about two different things -- as you and I often are.


Music, if anything , is LESS LIKELY to reveal differences than test tones. Because all that stuff going on in typical music actually MASKS differences that become apparent in isolation. THat's more psychoacoustics.
krabapple is offline  
post #99 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

...
This 'hypersonic effect' was later reported not to occur during headphone listening, only during loudspeaker listening, suggesting the possibility that it was not transmitted by 'hearing' as we know it at all.

No one has yet been able to replicate Oohashi et al.s findings, though some have tried.

That loudspeaker experiment was refuted by another trying to duplicate the firt paper and found that IM harmonics is what caused the positive outcome. As soon as that was controlled for, no supersonic sound was detected.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #100 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Journal of Neuroscience would have given it pretty rigorous peer review. That;s a major journal. But it was published in Journal of Neurophysiology, a much smaller journal.

Well, I should have looked at it again. It was Neuro something
And, did the author really demonstrate that blood flow, or brain wave was an accurate indicator for sound detection? I doubt it.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #101 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I did some bias controlled listening tests several years ago. It would be fair to say that, even at that time, digital conversion was a mature techology.

The most interesting result for me was that a panel of audiophiles couldn't tell an expensive Audio Research CD player from an inexpensive Harman Kardon player. The Audio Research player was prettier, to be sure. It was heavier and more pleasurable to use. But it didn't sound any different than a player that cost 1/10 its price. I haven't made such an extreme comparison with CD players since (I sold the Audio Research and continue to use the HK) but I have done a few with products that would be more comparable. Same result.

Spending a lot of money for a CD player might be akin to buying a high end watch. More pride of ownership, better bragging rights, nicer fit and finish but it likely keeps time about the same as any other watch. If you think of it that way, it might help avoid any potential disappointment.

Maybe HK should charge more and them it woul dbe detected. like an expensive wine.

Oh, wait, one must know that the test item had a higher price tag than the other
CharlesJ is offline  
post #102 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,979
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 600
Quote:


But I also think that some differences are not so subtle that it precludes a reasonable determination that there are differences notwithstanding the biases we are talking about. The Bel Canto DAC 2 simply does not sound like the Electrocompanient DAC on Nora Jones "Come Away With Me" album, for example. If you listen to the Bel Canto DAC 2 for a long time and then switch to the Electrocompanient DAC, I think you will find that the presentation on that album is noticeably different. At least it is different enough that I think one can conclude it is an actual difference. (Personally, I preferred the Bel Canto's presentation on that particular album even though I kept the Electrocompanient DAC.)

Well, with respect to the DAC's I'd be curious if the differences were still not so subtle when level matched. Then, I'd take it from there.

Quote:


But my point is that I think that one can attain a fairly high degree of confidence that some differences are real, if one takes steps to try to be objective, and if the differences are of a certain magnitude to the listener after careful evaluation.

How we do things personally is well, how we do them. We only need to satisfy ourselves but it's when we go outside of ourselves to make claims of a specific nature that things change. I know of no way that one can correct for a bias that is subconcious. One that a person doesn't even know he's predisposed to. If I've got to sit with an audio product for 6 months before I can tell whether it's worth buying, then I damned well want a 6 month return period.

I realize that much of what I and others may say you look upon as opinion but that may well be because you haven't delved into this aspect of the subject as deeply. JND's involving test tones are quite a bit more sensitive than music if only for the simple fact that you don't have masking issues to deal with or changes in auditory focus.

"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 online now  
post #103 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post

Putting aside the first sentence regarding "empirical support," I disagree with you entirely, and while your comments are set forth like they are an authoritative statement of absolute fact, they appear to be merely your opinion. My opinion, based on my own listening experience, is that longer term listening enables one to become intimately familiar with how a certain selection sounds with certain equipment, just as ,for example, one might become intimately familiar with the voice of a sibling, such that any slight change is immediately recognizable. Others have expressed similar opinions based on their experiences.

With respect to the first sentence, I don't know if there is any empirical support either way. Indeed, the very discussion concerns the difficulty of dealing in an "empirical" manner with long term listening experiences.

Well, I am not sure if this would qualify for you but one long term amp test was written up DBT, of course.

Shanefield, Daniel, " The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double Blind Testing,: Hi-Fidelity, Mar 80, pg 57-61.

A null outcome after months of listening.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #104 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 1,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Why wouldn't you? What purpose does the 'long term listening baseline' serve, if not to be a familiar sonic reference? If your 'long term baseline' is player A, then if player B really sounds different, it should be a cinch to ABX it.

Why wouldn't I say what? Why wouldn't I say what I'm not saying? Because it's not what I'm saying. It's not my belief. In my experience, it is the ability to become familiar with how something sounds over long term listening -- and the ingrained memory of how something that one has become very familiar with sounds -- that makes the different sound apparent upon switching to the new sound. Once you start rapidly switching back and forth between the player A and player B, I personally find it more difficult to appreciate the differences in the items.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Aside from which, it is clearly NOT necessary for listeners to do 'long term listening' to both A AND B, in order to believe they hear a difference between them. It happens all the time in audio reviews.

I'm speaking for myself, not as a representative if any audio reviews. I'm not defending their views. Nor am I disagreeing with them. I'm talking about what I have experienced and what has been helpful to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Again, are you claiming that a difference that is established in the listeners mind after 'long term' sighted listening, disappears during the first subsequent short term listening session?

Not exactly. But if you then start switching back and forth I think the differences become less apparent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

That is QUITE at odds with what audiophiles usually report.

I telling you what I think and what I have experienced. You'll have to ask the other "audiophiles" what they think or have experienced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post


And what, btw, is the 'proper' duration of 'long term' listening, for this difference to manifest? Hours? Days?

Personally, I find several days or, even better, a few weeks to be helpful. But that's just me.
smitty is offline  
post #105 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Music, if anything , is LESS LIKELY to reveal differences than test tones. Because all that stuff going on in typical music actually MASKS differences that become apparent in isolation. THat's more psychoacoustics.

Indeed.
Soulodre, Gilbert A., Lavoie, Michael C., and Norcross, Scott G. The Subjective Loudness of Typical Program Material, AES Convention Paper 5892, 115th Convention, Oct 2003.

Shows how badly we misjudge levels with different material. Test tones, pink noise is the most sensitive.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #106 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 1,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Yeah, you don't know, you don't know. That's another thing 'audiopphiles' do...they imagine their own 'not knowing;' says something about the state of the science. But science marches on, and you not knowing about the evidence, doesn't mean it's not out there.

I find your method of discussion very obnoxious and annoying and I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore. I'll discuss it with others, and there seem to be plenty of others who are able to present the "skeptics" side in more polite manner.
smitty is offline  
post #107 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 05:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,979
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 600
What you're describing smitty, sounds an awful lot like issues with auditory anchors. Do you know what that is?

"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 online now  
post #108 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 06:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 1,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

JND's involving test tones are quite a bit more sensitive than music if only for the simple fact that you don't have masking issues to deal with or changes in auditory focus.

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't agree. To me, there is a vast difference between listing to a short non-descript test tone burst, and a musical selection. In other words, I don't think it is persuasive to say that people can't remember a particular test tone for more than x seconds and that means auditory memory for how a particular music selection sounds is very short. I haven't talked to my daughter, who's away at college for two weeks. I think I'll know her voice instantly if she calls me on the phone (and also be able to tell if she has a cold), even if she doesn't identify herself right away, and even if there are "masking issues." Recognition of a human voice that one has become familiar with is not like a test tone burst either.
smitty is offline  
post #109 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 06:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
smitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 1,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

What you're describing smitty, sounds an awful lot like issues with auditory anchors. Do you know what that is?

Yes, and I don't think that's the same thing at all, but maybe I'm missing your point.

I got to go for awhile. I'll check back on the discussion later.
smitty is offline  
post #110 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 06:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,979
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 600
You're misunderstanding masking issues in the context of music. Why don't you explain your understanding of auditory anchors? See you tomorrow.

"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 online now  
post #111 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 07:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Quote:


Can you describe or link me to the tests involving JND's that you reference above? You're not talking about the tests that ask people to distinguish between test tones are you?

What's this? Smitty who objects to people bringing up "science" all the time, when he just wants to talk about audio with other hobbyists, suddenly wants references? Give me a break.

Go back to college, and get to know the Psychology faculty. I'm not a database. But here's one article in the popular press you might want to peruse:

Nousaine T. "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long-term Listening." Audio, March 1997.

BTW, the distinction between test-tones and music is another audiophile myth. (Thanks for all the examples.) Your ears can't tell the difference, and they work the same way in both cases. JNDs are lower for pure tones and full-spectrum noise than for music for several well-understood reasons. Heard of masking, have you?

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #112 of 143 Old 01-28-2008, 07:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Quote:


Recognition of a human voice that one has become familiar with is not like a test tone burst either.

It's also not like the difference between two CD players. These differences are measurable, and the scales are totally different. Have you ever heard an audio system that made Ella Fitzgerald sound like someone else?

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #113 of 143 Old 01-29-2008, 06:40 AM
 
atdamico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Very intersting discussion and I am sure that it will continue for a while, but hasn't anybody noticed that Smitty's entire argument seems to be:

"This is they way I feel, this is what I think, this is what my ears tell me, nothing anybody else tells me, nothing that I read, no study that you post, will change my mind. This is my opinion and as an opinion I am entitled to it and nothing you show me or tell me will ever change my mind as what I think is based on what my "ears" tell me."

Like a faith based argument, Smitty has employed the time tested and proven "Golden Ears" argument. And gentlemen, all of you must know that there is no counter argument to this. If Smitty was willing to objectively look at the data he would be an objective person. But as he as employed the dreaded "Golden Ears" argument in the first place he has demonstrated that this is not objective or logical, and is only willing to believe what he "hears", and is unwilling to consider that there may be other reasons to explain what he hears other than, they must sound different.
atdamico is offline  
post #114 of 143 Old 01-29-2008, 07:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Smitty just don't want to get the point.

But I think this discussion has been helpful anyway. Many people can still get the point and learn something more about subjective testing.
JorgeLopez11 is offline  
post #115 of 143 Old 01-29-2008, 08:41 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
drecar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is science sure that a dbt does not exploit any propety of hearing that would give false results? What triggered my interest was that it appeared test equipment can detect the differences and audiophiles claimed a difference(under non dbt conditions). I know the scientific community would not want to learn that auditory dbt's where flawed becaused that could render a lot of research invalid. It just mysterious to me why the three things do not agree.
drecar is offline  
post #116 of 143 Old 01-29-2008, 09:03 AM
 
atdamico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by drecar View Post

...I know the scientific community would not want to learn that auditory dbt's where flawed becaused that could render a lot of research invalid. It just mysterious to me why the three things do not agree.

Actually, the opposite it true. Scientists welcome critical push back. A true scientist would embrace any serious data that indicated that a test, procedure, or theory was flawed. That is how we make progress as a species. That is the beauty of science. It admits that it can be wrong. It welcomes critical analysis. It states ideas, based on available data and tests, makes its conclusions available to the community, encourges others to prove the conclusions wrong, and thereby learns what is reality. The ironic thing is that faith based people point at the mistakes that science has made as an indictment of science when actually, at the very core, this is exactly what the beauty of science really is. Of course it makes mistakes. But unlike faith, it embraces its mistakes and goes on. It may not be much but its the best we have.
atdamico is offline  
post #117 of 143 Old 01-29-2008, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by atdamico View Post

Actually, the opposite it true. Scientists welcome critical push back. A true scientist would embrace any serious data that indicated that a test, procedure, or theory was flawed. That is how we make progress as a species. That is the beauty of science. It admits that it can be wrong. It welcomes critical analysis. It states ideas, based on available data and tests, makes its conclusions available to the community, encourges others to prove the conclusions wrong, and thereby learns what is reality. The ironic thing is that faith based people point at the mistakes that science has made as an indictment of science when actually, at the very core, this is exactly what the beauty of science really is. Of course it makes mistakes. But unlike faith, it embraces its mistakes and goes on. It may not be much but its the best we have.

Very well put. Recently, I read some of the speculation on the new particle accelerator going online soon and one of the scientists was hopeful of seeing something they can't explain overturning some of the speculations and theories. He said that is when the fun starts.
Randybes is offline  
post #118 of 143 Old 01-29-2008, 09:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,190
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 327
Quote:


What triggered my interest was that it appeared test equipment can detect the differences and audiophiles claimed a difference(under non dbt conditions). ... It just mysterious to me why the three things do not agree.

You're misstating the evidence here. Measurements and DBTs generally do agree. When measurable differences exceed certain thresholds, DBTs tend to demonstrate differences; when things measure very similarly, DBTs get null results. Part of why scientists are confident about the reliability of DBTs is that they correlate with other data. It's the audiophile claims that are the outlier here--they don't correlate with anything. So scientists have looked for (and found) other explanations for such claims.

Quote:


I know the scientific community would not want to learn that auditory dbt's where flawed becaused that could render a lot of research invalid.

Then you know nothing about the scientific community. It is full of people who would like nothing better than to discover something that rendered a lot of prior research invalid. It would make their career.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #119 of 143 Old 01-29-2008, 09:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,979
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 600
drecar, hearing is like any other of our senses when it comes to fine comparisons. The approaches and techniques that work for taste, smell, touch, sight work just as well for hearing. Were we as consumers and enthusiasts to take a more pragmatic approach to this hobby we might have less junk in the marketplace and more competition that's performance and not hype driven. Now, you'll all excuse me while I listen to the 'sound' of various solder compositions.

"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 online now  
post #120 of 143 Old 01-29-2008, 10:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

drecar, hearing is like any other of our senses when it comes to fine comparisons. The approaches and techniques that work for taste, smell, touch, sight work just as well for hearing. Were we as consumers and enthusiasts to take a more pragmatic approach to this hobby we might have less junk in the marketplace and more competition that's performance and not hype driven. Now, you'll all excuse me while I listen to the 'sound' of various solder compositions.

Anyone for Penn and Tellers water tests
Randybes is offline  
Reply CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

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