| Author |
Message |
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2005 03:27:19 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?
No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on
such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test).
How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it?
In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a
3-minute mile.
Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can
fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that
level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly?
This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the
performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way
to understand perception.
Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the
different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I
investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not.
Discrimination tasks that are based either on quick switching, or on
the need to conceptualize the qualities of the sound, are IMO not good
ways to investigate this question.
|
Your opinion is noted, but unfortunately you offer no viable
alternative. Until you do, *and* can provide evidence of its
viability, science will continue to treat quick-switched level-matched
DBTs as the gold standard for audio comparison.
| Quote: | Also note that perception is a fluid and very rich function, not
analgous to physical functions.
|
However, if the subject experiences no difference in perception when
listening to A and to B, it is reasonable to suggest that there is no
audible difference.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...
You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
|
Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you
cannot run a mile in 3 minutes.
| Quote: | I should add that your insistence that you have insight into my sensory
is insulting and unacceptable.
|
No, it's simple logic. That you find it 'unacceptable' does not alter
the reality of the situation.
| Quote: | I heard a difference between the $100 and $50 Monster cables.
There is no contradicting this. The question is not IF, but rather WHY.
|
Depends how you define 'heard'. You certainly *perceived* a
difference, but it's equally certain that there was no *audible*
difference in the physical soundfield. Basically, the WHY is your
overactive imagination. Fascinating that you have no interest in
proving the matter in a blind test.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Per Stromgren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
|
We can't know what you hear, but neither can you, if you don't test it
(double) blind!
Per.
PS. I can't remeber who said this here first, but it is still very
true! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the
different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I
investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not.
Discrimination tasks that are based either on quick switching, or on
the need to conceptualize the qualities of the sound, are IMO not good
ways to investigate this question.
|
But conscious discrimination is exactly what subjectivist audiophiles
do, every time they report or discuss a difference between two
components. How can it be that they can discriminate so easily, and yet
a test involving discrimination is somehow flawed? Whatever is "wrong"
with DBTs, it can't be because discrimination is too hard, because
discrimination is exactly what audiophiles do.
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 01, 2005 11:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.
I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote.
The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.
There has to be something to reinforce, no?
That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music
starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this
will be directly related to the prestige of the badge.
I wish that reviewers listened to equipment blind, for the purposes of
audio reviews, and that many audiophiles would choose equipment by
listening without knowing its identity. The latter doesn't happen for
mostly practical reasons; the former should happen. Presumably they
have the resources.
Actually, I'm being told over and over on RAO that 'it doesn't matter'
to consumers whether the differences they hear are 'real' or not.
It only matters that they're real to *them*.
Needless to say, I find this viewpoint curiously incurious, not to
mention a boon to snake-oil salesmen.
If one doesn't know the identity, then at least we can narrow down the
reported reaction to (1) the sound, (2) the reviewer's mood or other
random neuronal firing.
And in the second case, it's inappropriate to attribute the 'sound' to the
gear. Do you think reviewers in , say, Stereophile, will agree?
|
That's my point. They should listen blind but they don't.
If we had many "blind" reviews, we could look for patterns. For
example, we could look to see if a reviewer has a similar impression
when given the same piece of equipment on a different occasion. Since
this experiment has never been done, I claim we don't really know what
the result would be.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
| Quote: | On 1 Oct 2005 03:27:19 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?
No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on
such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test).
How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it?
In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a
3-minute mile.
Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can
fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that
level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly?
This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the
performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way
to understand perception.
Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the
different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I
investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not.
Discrimination tasks that are based either on quick switching, or on
the need to conceptualize the qualities of the sound, are IMO not good
ways to investigate this question.
Your opinion is noted, but unfortunately you offer no viable
alternative.
|
I think that non-comparitive or monadic testing is an interesting
alternative. If I get the time and find someone to help me, I would
like to do some testing in which I listen blind and rate the qualties
of the sound. Over three or four sessions, I will have listened to
every combination of DUT and musical selection. In any given session,
no musical selection will be used more than once.
| Quote: | Until you do, *and* can provide evidence of its
viability, science will continue to treat quick-switched level-matched
DBTs as the gold standard for audio comparison.
Also note that perception is a fluid and very rich function, not
analgous to physical functions.
However, if the subject experiences no difference in perception when
listening to A and to B, it is reasonable to suggest that there is no
audible difference.
|
I would agree, but my question is: how does one go about determining if
there is no difference in perception? I think a test for this should
control *all* the factors that influence perception, including context
& the use of one's awareness.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?
No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on
such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test).
How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it?
In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a
3-minute mile.
Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can
fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that
level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly?
This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the
performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way
to understand perception.
Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the
different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I
investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not.
How about asking yourself this question instead: do the different
experiences arise from objective differences in the sounds? Or, as is
possible, do they arise purely from subjective errors in perception?
|
That is the precise question I ask myself. That why I wrote "do the
different SOUNDS produce different experiences?"
By the way, you use the word "error". If listening to the same thing
twice produces different subjective impressions, I don't conclude that
necessarily there has been an "error" in perception. I suggest that
context affects perception.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:43 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
| Quote: | On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...
You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you
cannot run a mile in 3 minutes.
|
In each case you have a model: you have a model of how the human body
performs at running, and you have a model of how the ear/brain performs
at listening. And you claim that certain functions are so far outside
the limits that they are practically impossible.
It is always possible for the physical world to do things outside our
models, at least slightly. However, I simply believe that the world of
perception and consciousness is so rich and fluid that it is far more
likely to perform outside our fixed constraints.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:40 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the
different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I
investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not.
Discrimination tasks that are based either on quick switching, or on
the need to conceptualize the qualities of the sound, are IMO not good
ways to investigate this question.
But conscious discrimination is exactly what subjectivist audiophiles
do, every time they report or discuss a difference between two
components. How can it be that they can discriminate so easily, and yet
a test involving discrimination is somehow flawed?
|
Three points:
(1) I don't claim that all sighted discriminations are valid.
(2) Monadic listening---listening to decide what you think of
something---is not necessarily a discrimination task. It turns out you
can compare notes on two different listening sessions, so A & B can be
"compared" -- but in a very different context than asking oneself how A
& B are "different".
(3) IMO context affects the discrimination function. It's the
context--quick switching or the need to conceptualize sound qualities--
that I claim (or hypothesize) affects perception.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith Hughes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Steven Sullivan wrote:
|
<snip>
| Quote: | How about asking yourself this question instead: do the different
experiences arise from objective differences in the sounds? Or, as is
possible, do they arise purely from subjective errors in perception?
That is the precise question I ask myself. That why I wrote "do the
different SOUNDS produce different experiences?"
By the way, you use the word "error". If listening to the same thing
twice produces different subjective impressions, I don't conclude that
necessarily there has been an "error" in perception.
|
Then you do not understand the concept of "error", or "precision",
within the context of test design and implementation. If your
measurement 'tool' (whether meter, or human perception) returns
different results (in whatever parameter of interest) for different
iterations, then you have "error". It's a clear matter of definition.
Do a quick search for "Gauge R&R" sometime, maybe that will clarify it
for you. Just a standard statistical tool for verifying test precision
and reliability.
| Quote: | I suggest that context affects perception.
|
Well, here you see is the crux of the problem, and also why your
position devolves to the simple "we can't know anything for certain,
therefore anything is possible". Based on your words, you believe that:
1. Context affects perception.
2. And that "a test for this should control *all* the factors that
influence perception <<oh, and please provide the list of *all*
factors...can't? This is another call on the "unknowable" pretext>>,
including context & the **use of one's awareness**" (**emphasis added)
3. But also that "However, I simply believe that the world of
perception and consciousness is so rich and fluid that it is far more
likely to perform outside our fixed constraints".
So in (1) you conclude that the context can change the test results, and
so it follows in (2) that every possible parameter that could
conceivably affect the results, including your perception and conscious
awareness, must be controlled (as though such a list could ever
exist...to your satisfaction, that is), and yet in (3) you clearly
believe that perception and consciousness are neither repeatable nor
controllable, and will likely perform in an unpredictable, and indeed
possibly in an unknowable manner.
Do you not see the futility of this position? This is the genesis of
the "hand-waving" appellation *you* see so frequently, and seem not to
understand. Once you stipulate that unknown/unknowable/uncontrollable
parameters must be controlled, and further stipulate, as you have
clearly done, that perception is not repeatable or reproducible, the
logical conclusion is that in your view *all* data is suspect, and
therefore that *all* data carries the same weight. Thus you seem to
feel that unsubstantiated and/or evidentially baseless postulations
(i.e. "hand waving") are as worthy of serious consideration as those
based on objective evidence.
I fear Mr. Sullivan was being charitable with his 'pseudo science'
moniker, as this is clearly anti-science. In *all* fields of scientific
inquiry, repeatable data carry weight, non-repeatable data do not. If
results are not repeatable, the test method or execution is flawed. As
we say in my industry, "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence,
three times is validation". If your assertion is that perception is not
repeatable, then the corollary is clearly that no valid test can ever
exist, which just as clearly does not comport with the very premise of
science.
Keith Hughes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...
You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you
cannot run a mile in 3 minutes.
In each case you have a model: you have a model of how the human body
performs at running, and you have a model of how the ear/brain performs
at listening. And you claim that certain functions are so far outside
the limits that they are practically impossible.
Except, his model of the 3-minute mile is not dervied from fanciful 'what if'
scenarios.
|
Actually, all models start as "fanciful what if" scenarios, to use your
language. Or as I would put it, we start with a question to be
answered. My question is: what would we learn about perception if we
tested it in a similar context to listening for ejoyment? I can find no
existing answers to this question.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
"Three points:
(1) I don't claim that all sighted discriminations are valid.
(2) Monadic listening---listening to decide what you think of
something---is not necessarily a discrimination task. It turns out you
can compare notes on two different listening sessions, so A & B can be
"compared" -- but in a very different context than asking oneself how A
& B are "different".
(3) IMO context affects the discrimination function. It's the
context--quick switching or the need to conceptualize sound qualities--
that I claim (or hypothesize) affects perception."
Bottom line, show it, all manner of going on and on about "could be" and
"possible that" etc. have no meaning in the real world until it can be
shown they exist in evidence that can be tied to the real world linking
and all of the above. Did I mention my cheese doodle subjective
factor...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Steven Sullivan wrote:
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 02:51:38 GMT, michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?
No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on
such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test).
How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it?
In exactly the same way that we know that you will never run a
3-minute mile.
Your statement here, and Bob's statement about "elephants that can
fly", are statements about performance. Can my body *perform* to that
level; does an elephant have the *ability* to fly?
This seems to reflect the basic assumption in your paradigm: that the
performance of the test subject in discriminating A & B is a good way
to understand perception.
Whereas I ask, not how the ear/brain "performs," but simply: do the
different sounds A & B produce different experiences? And then I
investigate how one might go about determining if they do or do not.
How about asking yourself this question instead: do the different
experiences arise from objective differences in the sounds? Or, as is
possible, do they arise purely from subjective errors in perception?
That is the precise question I ask myself. That why I wrote "do the
different SOUNDS produce different experiences?"
|
Different *sounds* implies different waveforms --
physical differences in the compression waves that reach the ear.
But that's not required for you to think you heard something
different.
| Quote: | By the way, you use the word "error".
|
Yes, because if one perceives a difference when there *is no difference*
that can only be an error in perception. They aren't uncommon...whihc
is why 'science' -- by far the most successful method for modelling
the physical world that we have yet devised -- doesn't 'trust' sense perception
implicitly.
| Quote: | If listening to the same thing
twice produces different subjective impressions, I don't conclude that
necessarily there has been an "error" in perception. I suggest that
context affects perception.
|
I suggest that you try calling a spade a spade, for once.
--
-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Oct 2005 02:11:35 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...
You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?
Do I need point out to you that this is a metaphysical impossibilty?
You cannot know what I see or hear.
Sure I can, in the same way that I know for an absolute fact that you
cannot run a mile in 3 minutes.
In each case you have a model: you have a model of how the human body
performs at running, and you have a model of how the ear/brain performs
at listening. And you claim that certain functions are so far outside
the limits that they are practically impossible.
|
Except, his model of the 3-minute mile is not dervied from fanciful 'what if'
scenarios. It's derived from verifiable real-world performance data about
human speed and physiology.
| Quote: | It is always possible for the physical world to do things outside our
models, at least slightly. However, I simply believe that the world of
perception and consciousness is so rich and fluid that it is far more
likely to perform outside our fixed constraints.
|
Now all that's required is for you to demonstrate that we *do*. You
might want to do that *before* you start treating those 'beliefs'
as foundational building blocks for ever-more-speculative models.
--
-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Product comparisons |
|
|
The conscious "impression" of listening to music is a function of (1)
the sound and of (2) pre-conscious processing. I'm proposing that
perception can be understood better when *both* factors are accounted
for. If (1) doesn't change but (2) does, then there is nothing
erroneous about a change in perception.
Although we may not be able to control (2) perfectly, making the
attempt will get us closer to the truth than ignoring it entirely.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in