No Dan, I am clueless, why don't you fill me in on exactly what the conversation is about?
People who don't know much of anything professing that people are hearing things that are not a part of the physical world?
Or people trying to relay their experiences so the aforementioned people might realize how completely ridiculous they sound professing so much imaginary conclusive scientific knowledge that they could not possibly know?
That sum it up or did I miss something?
Please do spew mountains of sci-fi babble from the imagined science most of you seem to know so much about.
The truth of the matter is we will not have a conclusive all encompassing answer all rolled up nice and neat so one group of people can say "I told you so". It will never happen. Anyone who says it will should see a Psychologist and maybe even a psychiatrist.
I joined in because I found it amusing to point out the completely asinine stuff that some of these guys come up with. If you really wanted to make some progress then address the psychology behind people wanting to come to this thread to argue. All the rest has been said hundreds of times over.
So do tell us Danny
Anyone find the difference between the two photos I posted? Maybe it would help if we printed them out and we could swap them out once and awhile and see how many of you DBT people pass that test.
Funny how all the propeller heads are afraid of that one. Anyone care to give it a shot?
Last edited:
Actually I said they were pseudo objectivists.
Yes, and it should also be accurate.
Here's the way I see it.
Hearing explicitly means to perceive by way of our sense of hearing.
However even when the difference is due to nothing more than psychological phenomena, there is still a form of perception. I mean, we're not perceiving differences out of dead silence. There is still a stimulus that forms the basis of the perception.
So I use the word "perceive" for two instances. One where it's known that the perception is due to purely psychological phenomena and the other where it's not known one way or the other.
But I only use "hear" when it's due to actual audible differences.
Agreed.
se
Well my pseudo memory must be in-pseudo-accurate.Actually I said they were pseudo objectivists.
OK. But would you agree that there is no difference (using your definitions) between hearing and perceiving whilst it's happening, as it is only later that I may know for sure what the hell I was doing, perceiving or hearing.
Could be that believers may think that there must be a difference in the experience between perceiving and hearing and therefore they can't be mistaken when they put their mind (and ears) to it.
apc1.jpg has a white dot added....or is that just a download data error?
Man! I had another edit that it locked me out of d/t a server update. Up late tonight.
Olblueyez(and everyone getting emotional), try to relax. I didn't realize that I was only on the page, not your ignore list. I'd be honored to be on it, but I'll save you the time. This will be my last post in this thread. It's finally sunk in my thick skull--no one is going to reconsider their opinions or listen to the opposite side's. Well unless Tom changes the game then the objectivists might reconsider. If he fails the test, like everyone else known before him, nothing will change. Evidence does not sway the subjective mind as demonstrated by the overwhelming evidence against them. Strange as most would believe the Earth is a spherical object that orbits the Sun contrary to what their perception tells them. So far of all available web references known to us, it's 11 to 0 in favor of cables being inaudible and thus the objectivist view. I hope Tom helps to balance that scale a bit, but it just doesn't look promising. A couple of those tests are pretty weak, so call it 8 to nill just to be nice. Many audio DBTs do not yield null results, so that's not an excuse for the subjectivist side. In fact there is nothing other than "you, me, and everyone cannot prove what I hear." Truth be told, it can be done and Tom is stepping to the plate to do just that--to prove what he hears. He's the only one with the guts to prove or disprove it. Here's wishing him luck! I know he's been training hard for it--which only demonstrates the minutia were at each others throats for. That whole test was set up before I ever looked at this thread, though still no set date! He stated sometime in the middle of the month. Time is up. Lets get it over with, drink a beer, shake hands, and go home. It just seems too childish for me to be involved any longer. I'm ashamed to have been a part of this quarrel. It seems it was ever a discussion, debate, or in any way logical.
Hopefully no newbies are reading this. Not just because theirs a staggering amount of misleading misinformation posted, but it must make them think Audiophiles (yes we all are Audiophiles) are a bickering bunch of ninnies(sp?). If they don't think that, well maybe they'll fit right in.
Dan--no longer a part of the Springer Show of Audio. "try to be good to each other" gentlemen.
Olblueyez(and everyone getting emotional), try to relax. I didn't realize that I was only on the page, not your ignore list.
I'd be honored to be on it, but I'll save you the time. This will be my last post in this thread. It's finally sunk in my thick skull--no one is going to reconsider their opinions or listen to the opposite side's. Well unless Tom changes the game then the objectivists might reconsider. If he fails the test, like everyone else known before him, nothing will change. Evidence does not sway the subjective mind as demonstrated by the overwhelming evidence against them. Strange as most would believe the Earth is a spherical object that orbits the Sun contrary to what their perception tells them. So far of all available web references known to us, it's 11 to 0 in favor of cables being inaudible and thus the objectivist view. I hope Tom helps to balance that scale a bit, but it just doesn't look promising. A couple of those tests are pretty weak, so call it 8 to nill just to be nice. Many audio DBTs do not yield null results, so that's not an excuse for the subjectivist side. In fact there is nothing other than "you, me, and everyone cannot prove what I hear." Truth be told, it can be done and Tom is stepping to the plate to do just that--to prove what he hears. He's the only one with the guts to prove or disprove it. Here's wishing him luck! I know he's been training hard for it--which only demonstrates the minutia were at each others throats for. That whole test was set up before I ever looked at this thread, though still no set date! He stated sometime in the middle of the month. Time is up. Lets get it over with, drink a beer, shake hands, and go home. It just seems too childish for me to be involved any longer. I'm ashamed to have been a part of this quarrel. It seems it was ever a discussion, debate, or in any way logical.Hopefully no newbies are reading this. Not just because theirs a staggering amount of misleading misinformation posted, but it must make them think Audiophiles (yes we all are Audiophiles) are a bickering bunch of ninnies(sp?). If they don't think that, well maybe they'll fit right in.
Dan--no longer a part of the Springer Show of Audio. "try to be good to each other" gentlemen.
In the situation where the cables are not changed there is a fact about the matter: "the output signal is the same, it didn't change". If the person listening says that there was a difference then he/she has got it wrong. They did not correctly perceive the fact of the signals being the same. That shows that perceptions are fallible. We sometimes don't correctly hear what is the underlying reality.
The tricky part is how to gain knowledge of yet to be known facts about the world by our perceptions, which can be unreliable.
We have two cables A and B. Does one modify the input signal compared with the other so that we can distinguish their outputs for the same input signal? That is the fact to be discovered. We are using hearing as the method to decide if the signals can be distinguished. But hearing perception is fallible (an easily demonstrated fact about the world). So, what is the best method of getting the correct answer?
The DBT debate is that some think that DBTs are the best method for minimizing errors in perception. Others don't. For those that don't, what's a better method for minimizing errors?
Man! I had another edit that it locked me out of d/t a server update. Up late tonight.
Olblueyez(and everyone getting emotional), try to relax. I didn't realize that I was only on the page, not your ignore list.
Hopefully no newbies are reading this. Not just because theirs a staggering amount of misleading misinformation posted, but it must make them think Audiophiles (yes we all are Audiophiles) are a bickering bunch of ninnies(sp?). If they don't think that, well maybe they'll fit right in.
Dan--no longer a part of the Springer Show of Audio. "try to be good to each other" gentlemen.
Exactly
Well (fx slack being cut) my argument here was only sketched out briefy before, so maybe its time to put a bit more flesh on it. To me, this 'decision' of which button to press A or B isn't really like a purchase decision at all. The main difference is - it doesn't have consequences for anything, its relatively meaningless. When we buy something like a new cable ( I speculate here a little as I haven't ever bought boutiquey cables myself) then there are consequences for that decision - the guy's looking forward to how this is going to improve his existing set-up, what his wife will think of how he's spent the money, what his friends will think when he demonstrates the new addition to them. Those are some of the aspects which make his decision meaningful to him. In contrast, pressing A or B to indicate sameness to X is relatively meaningless.
Now as a teacher of English, I know that students learn most effectively when they use the language in meaningful ways, not just in parrot fashion. So I think the test subject will fairly quickly discover how boring doing the test is and that's a sure way to make his listening less discriminatory. To get the very best out of our subject I think we need to find a way to make it more engaging, somehow more human and less mechanical. The suggestion raised earlier about choosing a preferred source (A or B) is a valuable step in the right direction because expressing a preference intuitively feels more human than comparisons.
WHY??? That sinking feeling could very well be due to 'this is gonna be easy...oh shiiiit, they do sound much closer than I ever would have believed'. Then straight after that comes your 'additional' pressures of face etc (thought I'd throw face in there seein as how you are immersed now in asian cultures...
Well it doesn't matter what the sinking feeling is due to, its very presence will restrict efficient functioning of the higher cognitive processes. So he'll find he's gone cloth-eared.
@ terry_j,
after the test is done, the experimenter looks if there was a correlation to the DUTs.
So if John would always use "syrup" as the description for "A" the comparison to the allocation table would show that he might have been only guessing as the allocation was random (within the usual constraints of probability).
If he instead would sometime use "syrup" for "A" and sometimes "mellow" for "A" and you´ll find that it correlates to the random allocation, then you may conclude that there was an audible difference. (under the assumption that a negative control was used to ensure that other differences could be excluded as a reason for the result).
Wishes
after the test is done, the experimenter looks if there was a correlation to the DUTs.
So if John would always use "syrup" as the description for "A" the comparison to the allocation table would show that he might have been only guessing as the allocation was random (within the usual constraints of probability).
If he instead would sometime use "syrup" for "A" and sometimes "mellow" for "A" and you´ll find that it correlates to the random allocation, then you may conclude that there was an audible difference. (under the assumption that a negative control was used to ensure that other differences could be excluded as a reason for the result).
Wishes
Both accurate and practical. The way I see it your proposed usage doesn't really pass muster on either count.
Yes, and our sense experiences are the output of cognitive processes running in our unconscious. So we never get access to the raw vibrations, those must be transformed into sounds.
There is always a vibrational stimulus which triggers the creation of the sound heard. This phrase 'nothing more than psychological phenonema' is misleading, as we don't know a priori that this is the case. More often than not, we'll never know.
Take the following thought experiment. You're listening to the radio, you don't know if its FM or digital because its not yours. Will you be sure to use 'hear' for when you hear music coming from the FM station, and 'perceive' when its (perceptual codec compressed) digital? In this second case we know you're not hearing things which are 'really there' (i.e. masked quantisation noise), but how will you know that so as to choose the correct word? Or is there something I've misunderstood about your definitions - to me this proposed solution is totally impractical. As well as crucifying the normal English usages of the words 'hear' and 'perceive'.
Hmm, I did not have anything to drink tonight...but I don't get your point.
Makes a good argument for drinking eh?!
It gets a bit hard cause when I quote you, only your bit comes up, and my original bit could be a page ago. And often I'm too lazy to go all the way back and check haha.
But, IIRC, your original point was the pressure induced by the DBT 'what will the people think of me?' etc. Now it seem you are saying choosing A or B is meaningless, it has no consequences, and rather the purchase now has the consequences 'what will my wife think about me spending this money'.
No matter, things can get screwed up at times in the thread...I know that one hehehe.
Still, it's good to know choosing A or B is relatively meaningless, those previously fearful of doing a dbt for fear of choosing wrongly can now rest in peace.
Dang, I was banking on you being a teacher of existential philosophy.
Thanks jakob for your patience with me, but I am still not getting some (prob minor) point.
John has repeatedly said (even if the true identity was hidden) that he needs to SEE whether it is A, or B.
Are you saying (or not saying, but assuming that I should know this) that sometimes what he sees as A is one cable, and another time that he sees A it is the other?
See, I just don't get that. If it is constantly being changed (or not) then why does he even need to see it? But, at some point the cable MUST change, else he just equates syrup for A (knowing it will always be A) and mellow for B (knowing it will always be B), and we have gotten no where.
If we put the two cables in identical jackets (ie the true identity is blinded) then he may as well not see them at anytime. That still removes his X objection, and satisfies our blinded requirement, so why the overpowering need to see??
But in any case, from this...after the test is done, the experimenter looks if there was a correlation to the DUTs...am I correct in thinking that there is a random changing allocation of either A or B to the cables?? that was the main part I was trying to clarify. It needs to be that way surely.
Last edited:
@ abraxalito,
i tried to make a distinction between "perceiving" and "hearing" some pages ago too, mainly because the reaction of the auditory system to a stimulus is sometimes measureable while the subjective verbal description of a perception not necessarily reflects this reaction to the stimulus.
It is possible to percept something that is not there and
it is possible to not percept something that is there.
Unfortunately in our discussion in this thread the second part (while quite important in any test situation) is often omitted.
Oohashi et al tried to find a somewhat more objective access to the auditory system with EEG measurement and PET scans of listeners while exposing the participants to different stimuli.
Wishes
i tried to make a distinction between "perceiving" and "hearing" some pages ago too, mainly because the reaction of the auditory system to a stimulus is sometimes measureable while the subjective verbal description of a perception not necessarily reflects this reaction to the stimulus.
It is possible to percept something that is not there and
it is possible to not percept something that is there.
Unfortunately in our discussion in this thread the second part (while quite important in any test situation) is often omitted.
Oohashi et al tried to find a somewhat more objective access to the auditory system with EEG measurement and PET scans of listeners while exposing the participants to different stimuli.
Wishes
@ terry_j,
i´d assume that you don´t have to take the "see" part to literally.
The main goal (advantage) of the A-B-preference is that it avoids the situation in which the listener has to decide if he is listening to the "same" of "different" stimulus.
To detect "sameness" by listening only seems to be very difficult for participants as analysis of documented dbts have shown (or see for example Tom Nousaines article on this topic). Just another example of a bias/confounder that is not removed by a "blind test approach" .
In a A-B test the listeners is sure to listen after every switch to a different DUT and that is sometimes favourable as it might shorten the learning period needed to get used to a blind test.
And yes, as stated before, the allocation of the DUTs to "A" and "B" is random and of course will change during the test.
Wishes
i´d assume that you don´t have to take the "see" part to literally.
The main goal (advantage) of the A-B-preference is that it avoids the situation in which the listener has to decide if he is listening to the "same" of "different" stimulus.
To detect "sameness" by listening only seems to be very difficult for participants as analysis of documented dbts have shown (or see for example Tom Nousaines article on this topic). Just another example of a bias/confounder that is not removed by a "blind test approach" .
In a A-B test the listeners is sure to listen after every switch to a different DUT and that is sometimes favourable as it might shorten the learning period needed to get used to a blind test.
And yes, as stated before, the allocation of the DUTs to "A" and "B" is random and of course will change during the test.
Wishes
Ah, but this time I got the point why you didn't get the point. I think. So let me try again.
Yep - if that's going on in their subconscious, its certainly going to wreak havoc on their perceptual processes.
The individual choice of A or B isn't directly connected to the final outcome because that outcome is done through statistical analysis. So suppose the subject is feeling a little pressure - this will have a reinforcing effect, positive feedback if you like. More pressure means harder to tell differences, which feeds back into more pressure because he wants to show he can do it. But he's getting no feedback on how he's doing as he's making those decisions and I think this omission is crucial. Its not like sitting in an exam where he can check his answers over again and again to get some confidence back that he's doing fine. He's pressing buttons seemingly into a black hole and once he's made a choice he can't revisit it - that's what I mean about the individual presses being meaningless. Meaning for us comes as a result of the feedback we get on our actions - in this case the meaning comes at the end after the scores have been tallied, but that's too late, too delayed for the individual button presses to be meaningful.
My thinking is that, rather like a computer game which has constant feedback, we'd do better to design a test which allows the subject to improve his skills as the test is progressing and get feedback on his wrong answers. This would translate into more engagement and better honed perception. Then the subject might actually find the test fun and hopefully forget his lab rat status.
Over here they have Tao Te Ching so that's my focus when dealing with philosophy rather than Heidegger and Jean Paul Sartre
Thanks jakob. all we need now is for john to set a date.
Couldn't sleep, but forgot me glasses so might be a few mispressed keystrokes, we'll see.
Hmm, I'll have to sleep on it, but at first glance not only do I get your point,..I spose it's do-able. I do wonder at the end of the day if it would be any help tho (the instant feed back I mean)
scenario one, the guy starts his test and guesses (or chooses, take your pick, freudian slip there but thought I'd leave it as it's interesting i wrote that no?) correctly, is told so, he feels happy and more comfortable tetc, fulfilling your observation that the 'pressure is off' yada yada. So that's good for the test.
Also, yes I can see that it could very much help keep him interested, help alleviate the tedium of the procedure. So that's a big plus.
Trouble is, if he is told 'bzzzt, wrong' well we are back to the same problems of psychology we have gone over. Bang..'uh oh, it's not the walk in the park I always assumed'. First one might be ok, second or third in a row and....
Or he gets the first two or three right, then hits two in a row of wrong. 'Oh, this is hard work, my ears are getting tired so that MUST be the explanation for the error'. He will forever now be able to say 'I got 100% before fatigue and stress took over'.
To the more sensitive out there, this is not an indictment or attempt to call people liars, it's just human nature. He will KNOW he could hear them correctly before he tired (or whatever) simply because it backs up the position he already holds.
In a dbt, once you say you are ready, then you START. No data mining, the series begins and then ends in it's entirety.
This (as jakob pointed out with his example) is one of the many things gone over before in the thread...the guy is adamant and confident he can clearly hear cables. Even recently we have heard again that if you cannot clearly hear cables then you must be cloth eared or have a poor system.
So, apart from real and obvious methodology errors, why are we pandering for these 'little things' (if you follow), maybe this, maybe that. It is not *us* saying it is so easy that if you don't hear it you have cloth ears. From the way it comes across (from many, not all) it should be a doddle.
Just one of the many disconnects in this business.
Couldn't sleep, but forgot me glasses so might be a few mispressed keystrokes, we'll see.
Hmm, I'll have to sleep on it, but at first glance not only do I get your point,..I spose it's do-able. I do wonder at the end of the day if it would be any help tho (the instant feed back I mean)
scenario one, the guy starts his test and guesses (or chooses, take your pick, freudian slip there but thought I'd leave it as it's interesting i wrote that no?
) correctly, is told so, he feels happy and more comfortable tetc, fulfilling your observation that the 'pressure is off' yada yada. So that's good for the test.Also, yes I can see that it could very much help keep him interested, help alleviate the tedium of the procedure. So that's a big plus.
Trouble is, if he is told 'bzzzt, wrong' well we are back to the same problems of psychology we have gone over. Bang..'uh oh, it's not the walk in the park I always assumed'. First one might be ok, second or third in a row and....
Or he gets the first two or three right, then hits two in a row of wrong. 'Oh, this is hard work, my ears are getting tired so that MUST be the explanation for the error'. He will forever now be able to say 'I got 100% before fatigue and stress took over'.
To the more sensitive out there, this is not an indictment or attempt to call people liars, it's just human nature. He will KNOW he could hear them correctly before he tired (or whatever) simply because it backs up the position he already holds.
In a dbt, once you say you are ready, then you START. No data mining, the series begins and then ends in it's entirety.
This (as jakob pointed out with his example) is one of the many things gone over before in the thread...the guy is adamant and confident he can clearly hear cables. Even recently we have heard again that if you cannot clearly hear cables then you must be cloth eared or have a poor system.
So, apart from real and obvious methodology errors, why are we pandering for these 'little things' (if you follow), maybe this, maybe that. It is not *us* saying it is so easy that if you don't hear it you have cloth ears. From the way it comes across (from many, not all) it should be a doddle.
Just one of the many disconnects in this business.
There can be many ways to speculate the validity of any type of listening. The only way to know, is to actually ask the listener at what music passage can specifics be heard. I have had a few experiences where a few listeners just said the bass of a certain model was not clean enough for distinguishing bass adjustments effects during mixing. It took some time to figure out what they were talking about.
While you are at it, possibly you can recommend corrections to the name of the Ching over here. (in blue)...
Over here they have Tao Te Ching so that's my focus when dealing with philosophy rather than Heidegger and Jean Paul Sartre
E.J.Jordan Designs, loudspeaker consultants, designers and manufacturers
Just curious, have you spoken with people who have done a DBT test? Is this what they report as their experience of the test?
The reason I'm asking is that I haven't seen anything written about this and it would be interesting to know what the actual experience of others has been with DBT tests.
For a sample of one (me) - when I did some DBTs I truly thought I could detect differences in cables prior to the test and during the test I didn't experience any of the things you describe. I didn't actually know how I was going during the procedure so there was no pressure - that would be true for some, if you don't know why worry? Also, for all we know some people could think they were correctly identifying the chosen cable so they would be feeling confident, not concerned, during the procedure.
People react differently to test conditions. Some people really like exams, others don't. If people have a preference not to be put under "DBT pressure" (if that exists) then of course they won't do the test. But I found it interesting and enlightening - changed my view of a heap of things.
Sure, maybe as a training exercise prior to the real thing. But once the DBT is underway, there can be no feedback until all trials are completed, otherwise the whole thing would collapse to just a variation of a sighted test.
Well my pseudo memory must be in-pseudo-accurate.
Ha! Good retort!
I would agree that there is no difference in the sense that even if the perceived difference is purely psychological, it seems no less real to the listener that if it were due to actual audible difference.
Yes. That and quite a lot of vanity and ego.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.