*sigh*
Sorry JK - I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain secondary school statisiics to you.
I suggest you take an extra-curricular course on the subject.
This is a good start...
Sorry JK - I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain secondary school statisiics to you.
I suggest you take an extra-curricular course on the subject.
This is a good start...
Last edited:
You know, I don't give a penny for all that statistical crap if I know it proves nothing. Like, the majority of DIYers and engineers who are devoted to sound reproduction quality.
You know, I don't give a penny for all that statistical crap if I know it proves nothing. Like, the majority of DIYers and engineers who are devoted to sound reproduction quality.
Hard to understand when you put such store in the detailed numerical analysis of your circuits (with good effect as I am led to believe).
I think it was you who devised the hilarious distotion introduction device - capable of making things "sound great" by purposely distorting the signal. Proof enough for me you are on the side of the angels...
different designs, transducers, even differing design philosophies make speaker's frequency response, directivity/room interactions result in large easily measured on axis, reflected and reverberant frequency response differences greatly exceeding Clark's DBT/ABX frequency response discrimination thresholds
so they are expected to give "clearly audible" differences even if level matched as well as possible
I believe jkenny is violating the intent of the thread, exaggerating a opposing point to absurdity and claiming it the universal position of "the opposition" is a crude rhetorical trick with no intent to add to understanding, illuminate the issues – no “Objectist” claims different speaker's in a room are all going to sound alike or that the differences are so subtle that only DBT/ABX can be relied on to make the determination – the positive result of Clark's DBT/ABX tests is that many/most people can identify several dB over several octave frequency response differences without instrumentation
the commentary on medical DBT testing is not directly relevant - massive studies are more about safety - no one spends the big money without considerable evidence of effectiveness from much smaller studies - and yes sometimes effectiveness is found wanting in the bigger study
no great statistical power is required to determine something which can discriminated with 90% reliability by 90% of the population - surely "night and day" differences fall into this category?
criticizing some, even most, audio DBT/ABX tests on methodology doesn't lend any weight to the reliability of "just listen" naive subjectivism - not all "subjectists" are naive, some are familiar with psychoacoustics and perceptual testing methodologies and employ controls, level matching and blinding
but the audiophile press has a great deal of influence and has spent a long time cultivating "connoisseurism", and popularizing uncontrolled listening in florid “reviews” and my reading of various audio related internet forums certainly suggests that there is a large population who do subscribe to a naive "just listen" position - that any perceived subjective differences are absolute, infallible reflections of meaningful differences in equipment, and sonic differences can be ascribed to physical and electrical properties of the equipment without controls, references (but can rely on days, weeks old memory for reference), level matching, blinding protocols are unnecessary or counter productive - and they can discriminate these differences in one piece of the recording/reproduction chain in the presence of larger objectively measurable distortions because their experience lets them "listen through" the other "acceptable" component's errors
my impression is there are many fewer "naive objectivists" who in Thorsten's caricature only care about THD into a resistive load at 70% power - marketing hacks may seize on anything that they think can sell a product but no engineer I know with a AP analyzer is only going to push the THD button and call his amp "perfect" – much more likely to spend days generating megabytes of graphs using as many of the canned tests he can figure out – with many iterations, comparisons, test procedure validations along the way as well as using other instrumentation to verify or find weaknesses in stability, load variation, limiting, psrr, emi rejection...
then when the objective performance has been verified as “working” according to the design intent it might be time to consider listening tests
so they are expected to give "clearly audible" differences even if level matched as well as possible
I believe jkenny is violating the intent of the thread, exaggerating a opposing point to absurdity and claiming it the universal position of "the opposition" is a crude rhetorical trick with no intent to add to understanding, illuminate the issues – no “Objectist” claims different speaker's in a room are all going to sound alike or that the differences are so subtle that only DBT/ABX can be relied on to make the determination – the positive result of Clark's DBT/ABX tests is that many/most people can identify several dB over several octave frequency response differences without instrumentation
the commentary on medical DBT testing is not directly relevant - massive studies are more about safety - no one spends the big money without considerable evidence of effectiveness from much smaller studies - and yes sometimes effectiveness is found wanting in the bigger study
no great statistical power is required to determine something which can discriminated with 90% reliability by 90% of the population - surely "night and day" differences fall into this category?
criticizing some, even most, audio DBT/ABX tests on methodology doesn't lend any weight to the reliability of "just listen" naive subjectivism - not all "subjectists" are naive, some are familiar with psychoacoustics and perceptual testing methodologies and employ controls, level matching and blinding
but the audiophile press has a great deal of influence and has spent a long time cultivating "connoisseurism", and popularizing uncontrolled listening in florid “reviews” and my reading of various audio related internet forums certainly suggests that there is a large population who do subscribe to a naive "just listen" position - that any perceived subjective differences are absolute, infallible reflections of meaningful differences in equipment, and sonic differences can be ascribed to physical and electrical properties of the equipment without controls, references (but can rely on days, weeks old memory for reference), level matching, blinding protocols are unnecessary or counter productive - and they can discriminate these differences in one piece of the recording/reproduction chain in the presence of larger objectively measurable distortions because their experience lets them "listen through" the other "acceptable" component's errors
my impression is there are many fewer "naive objectivists" who in Thorsten's caricature only care about THD into a resistive load at 70% power - marketing hacks may seize on anything that they think can sell a product but no engineer I know with a AP analyzer is only going to push the THD button and call his amp "perfect" – much more likely to spend days generating megabytes of graphs using as many of the canned tests he can figure out – with many iterations, comparisons, test procedure validations along the way as well as using other instrumentation to verify or find weaknesses in stability, load variation, limiting, psrr, emi rejection...
then when the objective performance has been verified as “working” according to the design intent it might be time to consider listening tests
OT posts removed. Aard & Abrax stay on topic or do not post.
No, it was the device I designed especially for those who kept spreading the nonsense that "tube sound" means big amount of low order distortions. Anyone could use such device to evaluate own beliefs and come to own conclusion. However, types who know nothing except how to use mouse and keyboard are free to draw own conclusions, based on own type of experience...
Yes, that was the one "anti-bull$hit" device. Anyone who claims, "You like tube amps because they distort" could try to add some "tube distortions" to own "non distorting" amp and compare, does it sound now exactly like a nice sounding tube amp, or not.
Back to my original point (several pages back...)
I find the whole subjective/objective debate quite startling. Neither is wrong, but one or other may be inappropriate.
I could easily justify a relatively relaxed subjective listening test to confirm a design direction - asking the very course question "is this an idea that has potential?"
I could easily see how design refinement might require objective measures - for example speakers tested in a dead room with appropriately placed and calibrated mikes will provide detail information that a listening test could never give.
Finally, there is no point releasing the device onto an unwilling world, so a detailed listening test at the pre-release stage would give me information on what the listening public might think and any minor tweaks to improve - provided of course that I captured the information and analysed it appropriately.
I might even show them the box so that comments on aesthetics might be used to further improve the chance of success. Separately though. Lets not mix the two issues up.
In short, there is no "wrong" test method (within reason...), just a test method inappropriately applied.
I find the whole subjective/objective debate quite startling. Neither is wrong, but one or other may be inappropriate.
I could easily justify a relatively relaxed subjective listening test to confirm a design direction - asking the very course question "is this an idea that has potential?"
I could easily see how design refinement might require objective measures - for example speakers tested in a dead room with appropriately placed and calibrated mikes will provide detail information that a listening test could never give.
Finally, there is no point releasing the device onto an unwilling world, so a detailed listening test at the pre-release stage would give me information on what the listening public might think and any minor tweaks to improve - provided of course that I captured the information and analysed it appropriately.
I might even show them the box so that comments on aesthetics might be used to further improve the chance of success. Separately though. Lets not mix the two issues up.
In short, there is no "wrong" test method (within reason...), just a test method inappropriately applied.
Hi,
I agree on neither wrong side, but to me it is not startling. I would not even call one or the other inappropriate, I would instead say that they cover different parts of the whole.
It was, I believe Charles Mordechai who said:
Practice without theory is blind.
Theory without practice is sterile.
We come back to basic didactics where the apparent opposites are shown to be parts of a greater one and their combination (synthesis) allows new insights.
I would also suggest that the problem is more one created by those who have a lack of moral affordability for new information and show an unwillingness to integrate additional data into their existing worldview (on both sides of the debate actually, but by far more obviously on the Objectivist side).
Well, according to the Objectivists the public should only allowed to buy what performs well and is shown effective under their arbitrary set of rules, if they like it or not. Nor should anybody say anything with full academic proof (i am possibly slightly exaggerating here, but only slightly).
And that touches on such values beloved by people in Europe and North america as freedom of choice and freedom of speech.
So these annoying fights do not only have a religious side (the defence of orthodox, ossified theory against "dangerous" and "unscientific" ideas) but also a political one (the supporters of a nanny state that regulates everything to the point where what is not forbidden is mandatory and those of liberty who consider people in general smart enough to take care of their own affairs).
Once you mix anything with religious and political undertones, the problems are predestined by fate.
Ciao T
I agree on neither wrong side, but to me it is not startling. I would not even call one or the other inappropriate, I would instead say that they cover different parts of the whole.
It was, I believe Charles Mordechai who said:
Practice without theory is blind.
Theory without practice is sterile.
We come back to basic didactics where the apparent opposites are shown to be parts of a greater one and their combination (synthesis) allows new insights.
I would also suggest that the problem is more one created by those who have a lack of moral affordability for new information and show an unwillingness to integrate additional data into their existing worldview (on both sides of the debate actually, but by far more obviously on the Objectivist side).
Well, according to the Objectivists the public should only allowed to buy what performs well and is shown effective under their arbitrary set of rules, if they like it or not. Nor should anybody say anything with full academic proof (i am possibly slightly exaggerating here, but only slightly).
And that touches on such values beloved by people in Europe and North america as freedom of choice and freedom of speech.
So these annoying fights do not only have a religious side (the defence of orthodox, ossified theory against "dangerous" and "unscientific" ideas) but also a political one (the supporters of a nanny state that regulates everything to the point where what is not forbidden is mandatory and those of liberty who consider people in general smart enough to take care of their own affairs).
Once you mix anything with religious and political undertones, the problems are predestined by fate.
Ciao T
Hi,
The point of citing these medical studies is to illustrate how they differ from what is commonly done in Audio. The problem is that many when they "double blind test" will link these automatically to the kind engaged in in Medicine (and other fields) when they in fact have very little in common.
More to the point, the massive size studies in Medicine are not just about safety, but about evidence and statistical power. Small size tests lack statistical power. This means they are not able to be generalised.
Yet there are many who incorrectly cite small size blind listening tests (and especially their return of a "not different" result) as evidence that a certain posited theory or phenomena has:
1) been invalidated, because one such test failed to return a positive
2) those who still insist insist the theory is true or Phenomena actual are imagining things or lack certain basic mental facilities
What is worrying is that such comments are made on the basis of tests lacking any real controls, calibration (that is proof they where actually able to show known real differences) and with very low statistical power, while these test are being presented as somehow equal to the kind of DB tests done in other fields.
At the best interpretation such behaviour is extremely naive and somewhat disingenuous, at worst it may be taken as being deliberative misleading, especially if whoever expounds these has been previously notified of the problems with his "evidence".
Most subjectivists are at least honest with their evidence (or lack thereof).
Well, try telling these "non-naive objectivists" that THD measurements are useless, as they lack any link to perceived sound sound quality and enjoy the ensuing huffing and puffing and general negativity aimed at you.
In fact, there are enough supposedly non-naive objectivist who hold as an absolute tenet of their faith that all amplifiers with sufficiently identical frequency response and THD must sound the same...
Ciao T
The point of citing these medical studies is to illustrate how they differ from what is commonly done in Audio. The problem is that many when they "double blind test" will link these automatically to the kind engaged in in Medicine (and other fields) when they in fact have very little in common.
More to the point, the massive size studies in Medicine are not just about safety, but about evidence and statistical power. Small size tests lack statistical power. This means they are not able to be generalised.
Yet there are many who incorrectly cite small size blind listening tests (and especially their return of a "not different" result) as evidence that a certain posited theory or phenomena has:
1) been invalidated, because one such test failed to return a positive
2) those who still insist insist the theory is true or Phenomena actual are imagining things or lack certain basic mental facilities
What is worrying is that such comments are made on the basis of tests lacking any real controls, calibration (that is proof they where actually able to show known real differences) and with very low statistical power, while these test are being presented as somehow equal to the kind of DB tests done in other fields.
At the best interpretation such behaviour is extremely naive and somewhat disingenuous, at worst it may be taken as being deliberative misleading, especially if whoever expounds these has been previously notified of the problems with his "evidence".
Most subjectivists are at least honest with their evidence (or lack thereof).
Well, try telling these "non-naive objectivists" that THD measurements are useless, as they lack any link to perceived sound sound quality and enjoy the ensuing huffing and puffing and general negativity aimed at you.
In fact, there are enough supposedly non-naive objectivist who hold as an absolute tenet of their faith that all amplifiers with sufficiently identical frequency response and THD must sound the same...
Ciao T
I disagree - I don't think that there is any lack of "moral affordability for new information" (I guess you mean "desire to learn valuable stuff"), but more an argument about what stuff (knowledge) is valuable and, to some extent, when it is valuable.
I agree that this then gives rise to an unwillingness to integrate data, but again, here it diverges. The pure subjectivist is sure that objective measurement will damage the majic; the pure objectivist is sure they have already measured it and anything else is irrelevant. Like you, I use an extreme position for effect.
Slightly????
The rest of your post is interesting - the excesses of both extreme capitalism (freedom of choice) and extreme communism (dictate and central control) have been well displayed recently - I don't think either has merit.
The least interesting yet highest merit path lies somewhere in the centre as with most things - take the good components of both subectivism and objectivism and use them to their best advantage.
Last edited:
Well, these kids seem to be getting on with the problem of correlating distortion with subjective experience.
It took me about an hour to read this but I expect most folk reading this thread have a better background than me and can probably get thru it faster.
http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/9852082/07gr1061_Thesis.pdf
Thorsten, their sample size is small, but the work seems to stand up. Good phenomenology, maybe?
My aim in posting this is that I don't think the discussion here can move ahead unless there is some scientific work that might be used as a reference.
It took me about an hour to read this but I expect most folk reading this thread have a better background than me and can probably get thru it faster.
http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/9852082/07gr1061_Thesis.pdf
Thorsten, their sample size is small, but the work seems to stand up. Good phenomenology, maybe?
My aim in posting this is that I don't think the discussion here can move ahead unless there is some scientific work that might be used as a reference.
Last edited:
Nope, as an example of the species myself, I know that's false. There's no majic from where I'm sitting. Just stuff we don't have theories for at this present time.
I think you confuse 'free markets' with 'capitalism'. Free market capitalism is an oxymoron.
False dichotomy perhaps? Some degree of centralisation is necessary in practice - in the case of capitalism, the permission for the creation of capital is a centralised function.
Eminently reasonable and indeed the path I take
What about them? If you had asked, "What about 100 subjective reports scrutinized with statistical analysis?", I would've probably eagerly anticipated an answer.
I don't know. It's possible some "nothing" is actually "something." But the onus is on those who make the claim. Until then...
The comments about the large body of people reporting are irrelevant. A large body of people think Justin Beiber is the best male vocalist, a large body of people think all snakes are dangerous, a large body of people think driving while intoxicated is "OK", etc etc. There are no useful facts to be derived from that.
I do very much, and kevinkr's post nails it in so many respects. I think that to advance the science of audio, one must approach it as any other discipline. To advance the enjoyment of audio is a different thing, and his last paragraph is right on target. I also think those two things will in time become closer to each other. That's what we should be discussing and debating - how to help that happen.
Why do you claim that (just for a random example) 'the trumpet is a bit more in focus now' is a claim? Surely claims are only made about 'objective' things?
To explore your thinking a bit more, here's a question for ya. Is 'I have a splitting headache' a claim to your way of thinking?
Hi,
No, I mean "moral affordability" not "desire to learn stuff".
It is the same as monetary affordability, but here in the sphere of ideas and concepts.
Monetary affordability simply means that to get what it is needs more money that one can or is prepared to spends (and often leads to instances of sour grapes).
Moral affordability means that ones whole world view would require an expense in re-arranging of the mental furniture that one is not able or willing to undertake, so anything that is morally unaffordable as concept must be somehow made to go away or ignored (another case of sour grapes, that often goes hand in hand with the first in Audio, one may remark).
It is often present in Science and Technology, even Einstein was subject to it and strongly disliked even some of the implications of his own theories and quite strongly opposed other theories that build upon this long after they where widely held to be true at least to the "best we know now" extent.
Actually, the pure subjectivist will, in case of conflict between measurements or theories and his own experience (and possibly corresponding and supporting experiences by others) select his experience as guide, ignoring the conflicting data, he is essentially a practical empiricist, operating in the "practice without theory is blind" realm.
Equally, the pure objectivist will, in case of conflict between measurements or theories and his own experience (and possibly corresponding experiences by others) select the measurements or theories as guide, ignoring the conflicting experiences, he is essentially a theorist, operating in the "theory without practice is sterile" realm.
Of course, these days not even 15 Year old Virgins are pure (if they are still Virgins) and in fact such a thing as "pure anything" only exists in statistical abstracts, i.e. the human mathematical mindscape (like the perfect chicken, within it's perfect chicken coop and which no doubt excretes chemically pure and completely ideal chicken excrement). Pure anythings never appear in external space-time, which consists only and always of "impure" anything's in non-normal series. So we best talk about people with varying degrees of leaning towards a certain position.
Yet, no matter how pure the Objectivist or Subjectivist and no matter to what degree they reject conflicting data, it is fine, unless they insists that because it is true for them it must be universally true for all, which few do among the subjectivists (by their very nature - but there is the lunatic fringe) yet which is disturbingly common among objectivists with puritanical leaning (the "if I'm not capable of having any fun, so at least I can spoil everyone elses" approach).
Slightly. Or possibly, reading thishere group of boards, not exaggerating at all, rather being too conservative in my assertions.
I suspect we best do not debate politics and ideology, ecept in the slightest possible brush as I noted in this thread. First, it WAY off topic, second, our backgrounds in reasoning about these are so far apart that I am already agreeing to disagree.
I would also note that there has never been any country that could be remotely called communist and there is no country that supports and implements free market capitalism. The real incarnations hold by far more in common, than apart, which of course does not hinder very real, violent and dramatic conflict between them.
This is indeed what I have been trying to say with banging on about synthesis between the warring opposites (that is between the "I am hearing a difference" Thesis and "Oh no, you are just imagining things" AntiThesis) and the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.
We would all do well to realise "the opposition" also has valuable insights and that anyone who considers himself not to be one of the Blind Men, who does not appreciate that he purviews and analyses only a part of the Elephant, is guilty at least of great intellectual pride and self delusion.
Ciao T
PS, I hold no great hope in the matter of the blind men though, it usually goes like in the poem:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
No, I mean "moral affordability" not "desire to learn stuff".
It is the same as monetary affordability, but here in the sphere of ideas and concepts.
Monetary affordability simply means that to get what it is needs more money that one can or is prepared to spends (and often leads to instances of sour grapes).
Moral affordability means that ones whole world view would require an expense in re-arranging of the mental furniture that one is not able or willing to undertake, so anything that is morally unaffordable as concept must be somehow made to go away or ignored (another case of sour grapes, that often goes hand in hand with the first in Audio, one may remark).
It is often present in Science and Technology, even Einstein was subject to it and strongly disliked even some of the implications of his own theories and quite strongly opposed other theories that build upon this long after they where widely held to be true at least to the "best we know now" extent.
Actually, the pure subjectivist will, in case of conflict between measurements or theories and his own experience (and possibly corresponding and supporting experiences by others) select his experience as guide, ignoring the conflicting data, he is essentially a practical empiricist, operating in the "practice without theory is blind" realm.
Equally, the pure objectivist will, in case of conflict between measurements or theories and his own experience (and possibly corresponding experiences by others) select the measurements or theories as guide, ignoring the conflicting experiences, he is essentially a theorist, operating in the "theory without practice is sterile" realm.
Of course, these days not even 15 Year old Virgins are pure (if they are still Virgins) and in fact such a thing as "pure anything" only exists in statistical abstracts, i.e. the human mathematical mindscape (like the perfect chicken, within it's perfect chicken coop and which no doubt excretes chemically pure and completely ideal chicken excrement). Pure anythings never appear in external space-time, which consists only and always of "impure" anything's in non-normal series. So we best talk about people with varying degrees of leaning towards a certain position.
Yet, no matter how pure the Objectivist or Subjectivist and no matter to what degree they reject conflicting data, it is fine, unless they insists that because it is true for them it must be universally true for all, which few do among the subjectivists (by their very nature - but there is the lunatic fringe) yet which is disturbingly common among objectivists with puritanical leaning (the "if I'm not capable of having any fun, so at least I can spoil everyone elses" approach).
Slightly????
Slightly. Or possibly, reading thishere group of boards, not exaggerating at all, rather being too conservative in my assertions.
I suspect we best do not debate politics and ideology, ecept in the slightest possible brush as I noted in this thread. First, it WAY off topic, second, our backgrounds in reasoning about these are so far apart that I am already agreeing to disagree.
I would also note that there has never been any country that could be remotely called communist and there is no country that supports and implements free market capitalism. The real incarnations hold by far more in common, than apart, which of course does not hinder very real, violent and dramatic conflict between them.
This is indeed what I have been trying to say with banging on about synthesis between the warring opposites (that is between the "I am hearing a difference" Thesis and "Oh no, you are just imagining things" AntiThesis) and the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.
We would all do well to realise "the opposition" also has valuable insights and that anyone who considers himself not to be one of the Blind Men, who does not appreciate that he purviews and analyses only a part of the Elephant, is guilty at least of great intellectual pride and self delusion.
Ciao T
PS, I hold no great hope in the matter of the blind men though, it usually goes like in the poem:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.