I took his question to be looking for DIYAudio's members personal soul-searching on what would convince them.
EDIT - Oh, there you go, 9 pages on and Jakob2 said so himself.
I'm going to be rather cynical and suggest that for many their belief will be strong enough that NOTHING will convince them until their hear a difference themselves, and then if that difference is shown to be false they will then continue to believe the difference now exists depsite it having been shown to be down to power of suggestion/a deliberate trick.
Not everyone, but many.....
Personally, I often don't trust myself when I think I hear a subtle difference.
@Evenharmonics,
Presumably known as long as the idea of controlled listening tests exists, but a bit more specific since the 1950s where experimenters compared the perfomance under various conditions, in the first case comparing ABX to A/B paired comparison method.
Always confirmed whenever different "blind" test protocols were compared by testing the same sensory difference under the different conditions.
Although i personally prefer to use the term "distraction" instead of "stress" it basically seems to be a kind of stress as the internal judgement processes seem to be different and the "mental work load" overall too.
I´ve cited various publications,and posted some excerpts, (although mainly coming from food tests), so if you missed them drop me a note and i´ll send you the informations.
Beside the formal tests based on ITU-Recommendations i wouldn´t say so, but anyway one has to use positive controls to know if it works as intended.
@Greg Erskine,
It get´s more difficult in case of multidimensional evaluations. Comparing and/or judging along one dimension is a lot easier, espcially if the dimension is known to the participants.
Multidimensionality is additionally the reason why transitivity isn´t per se given when comparing DUTs.
Presumably known as long as the idea of controlled listening tests exists, but a bit more specific since the 1950s where experimenters compared the perfomance under various conditions, in the first case comparing ABX to A/B paired comparison method.
Always confirmed whenever different "blind" test protocols were compared by testing the same sensory difference under the different conditions.
Although i personally prefer to use the term "distraction" instead of "stress" it basically seems to be a kind of stress as the internal judgement processes seem to be different and the "mental work load" overall too.
I´ve cited various publications,and posted some excerpts, (although mainly coming from food tests), so if you missed them drop me a note and i´ll send you the informations.
Beside the formal tests based on ITU-Recommendations i wouldn´t say so, but anyway one has to use positive controls to know if it works as intended.
@Greg Erskine,
I "thought" this applied only when there was greater than 2 choices. Our brain is wired to make instant decision between 2 alternatives. The more alternatives the more confusion and apparently results in errors. Now, did I hear this somewhere or just making it up.
I thought this is why I like to shop at Aldi.
It get´s more difficult in case of multidimensional evaluations. Comparing and/or judging along one dimension is a lot easier, espcially if the dimension is known to the participants.
Multidimensionality is additionally the reason why transitivity isn´t per se given when comparing DUTs.
Last edited:
I was referring to high fidelity in sound reproducing electronic equipment such as speakers, amps, DACs. There are industry standards in making those equipment to be high fidelity, AKA Hi-Fi.
Which tabulation of DBT results or discussion did you draw that impression from?
Impression is like opinion, everyone has it and they all stink. Now, as for the opinion, it's like... (I suppose you know the rest).
Comfort for those who use time and place as excuse for not being able to hear the difference.
First off, I think it's important to make the test participant feel at home (ie. in their own element) in the test environment. Forcing a person to approach listening to music in a way that is alien to them is quite possibly more a test of how well they adapt to playing the game and not as much a test of anything related to the test's intended exploration.
With that in mind, nobody other than a single test subject should be in the test/listening room. Those controlling the test can be out of the room (two way mirror, CCTV, or whatever). People affect each other in surprisingly subtle ways. I'd give each test participant control over the software they play and when they play it. The A/B switching is done by the testing personnel out of room, or perhaps both in and out of room by both parties.
As the systems under test will doubtless sound different from what the listener is used to (at home), orientation will take some time and the finer details in sound signatures take a little longer still. Marching subjects in, hitting them with a bunch of sound and then marching them out again isn't what I'd regard as being much of a test.
Anybody here who has built and listened a lot knows that it can sometimes take a while before subtle sonic traits get noticed. It can take days or weeks for you to realize what it is that bugs you about a particular something you've built or changed. Some time to settle in, and take in what's being heard is a good idea.
My2¢
I believe one of the issues with a tool like Foobar ABX is that there is no feedback when doing the actual test, only when using it in training mode? I might be wrong but wasn't this feedback in an earlier version of the Foobar ABX utility & taken out because too many positive (non null) results were being reported? Feedback simply entails telling if your trial was correct or not - I think what was in the previous version of Foobar ABX was showing the cumulative score, rather than just an individual trial score - it may have led to people stopping the test when a good run of trials was achieved, rather than when the pre-designated number of trials was reached.
However, I believe that auditory perception, at any moment, holds many concurrent possible solutions but favors one based on many factors. This is an ongoing process constantly attempting to remove the ambiguity that results from the 'poverty of the stimulus' in the signals. Being a best fit analysis it relies on feedback & confirmation to strengthen it's analysis.
Removing the ABX feedback, whether a trial was correct or not, is part of the inherent stress involved in such ABX testing - auditory processing is now operating in a more unsure mode - less security about the decision making leads to more internal stress & second guessing our decision
However, I believe that auditory perception, at any moment, holds many concurrent possible solutions but favors one based on many factors. This is an ongoing process constantly attempting to remove the ambiguity that results from the 'poverty of the stimulus' in the signals. Being a best fit analysis it relies on feedback & confirmation to strengthen it's analysis.
Removing the ABX feedback, whether a trial was correct or not, is part of the inherent stress involved in such ABX testing - auditory processing is now operating in a more unsure mode - less security about the decision making leads to more internal stress & second guessing our decision
Look at this thread for the first time, two things immediately come to mind from cognitive psychology research into bias and human nature. (1) There there is very interesting research showing that when people have firmly made up their minds, they are closed to thinking in truth seeking mode. (2) Debating is for winning, not for truth seeking. Both effects are very much in evidence in some of the posts. No point in talking to people who are already firmly decided and freely use debating techniques to win.
This seems to remain a one sided discussion. The average consumer/user of limited means, time, and ability is to be disarmed of their "forum ABX" tests while the industry plods on making claims that are supported by even less credible means. Look at MQA for instance. I feel like I'm arguing with an industry shill.
No-one knows if they've heard a difference or not, only that they've perceived one. You won't either know if the ABX null result is setting straight your false reality or if it is moving you away from a previously more accurate one.
Therefore, essentially it is the attitude of the participant that is doing all of the power of suggestion upon themselves. If they have a bais against ABX testing for example or an ego that can't allow itself to be contradicted etc
The better approach would be to acknowledge your own experience without conclusion it was correct or false and to let people take the result of the ABX to do with as they please. I don't understand why folks can't take that approach - I guess it is many other factors in the history of their lives, part of which is their brain's constructed self-story and image. One can still make strong decisions without necessariy knowing the absolute truth (afterall, that's how we all vote!) .
p.s. for clarity, I consider "hear" to mean you could detect that they heard something if one could intercept and inturpret the signals between sensary organs and the brain. "perceive" meaning it is part of the story the brain has concocted to represent reality.
I'm not sure what side of MQA you fall on, but what I've read/listened to about what MQA does and how it works and the research gone into it, it all come across as logical.
Ive never heard anything MQA and can't be bothered to, so have no idea if it provides any sonic benfits at all.
Reason I pick up on it is that the logic of it then primes me to give it consideration and an open mind. I also have this with higher resolution recordings - primed to have an open mind as to whether they are worthwhile sonically. Again, never bothered to check it out properly.
If one had the opposite reaction to the reasoning behind their claimed benefits, ones mind would be closed. Once a person's mind is closed, then I think a real sonic benefit would have to be so big as to be crazily obvious for those folks to go against their logical rejection and even then argue around it to find other reasons. Any subtle differences their brains would override and disbelieve before it reached conciousness.
HEnce for me, I think I believe tests with non-enthusiasts (or similar fields like musicians? ) more readily. Else I feel people bring too much mental
baggage with them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.