I'm not sure I completely follow that logic. Inconclusive results don't prove that an audible difference doesn't exist, only that a particular subject couldn't hear one under the test conditions. OTOH, a positive result(s) _will_ demonstrate an audible difference.
So are you telling me that finding no measurable differences in the testing (which will be released before the listening tests) will not influence the expectations of the listeners during these listening tests? Can you explain why you would not try to avoid such a possible problem by simply not releasing the measurement results until the listening tests were complete?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090912124050.htm
I believe it's called the Framing Effect!
Last edited:
I'm sure this post will be among the next wave of deletions used to keep this thread as it is mainly intended to be, about scientific analysis. But aren't we also quite sure that this device's Stated purpose is not at all similar to effects on wine tasting? If it was Supposed to merely affect expectations, probably not one would have ever been sold. It's my opinion that if purifying quantums ever really gave the military a useful edge these things would have been bought up in a similar fashion as 10,000 copies of a certain recent text publication, unless a group at the Pentagon with a lot of sway thought release of it to the world were important as other technologies essentially given away, like the internet.
But anyway, since the design of electronic systems involving millions of transistors and probably a hundreds of thousand passive devices were required in order to get any available recording to your ear, and these systems are all designed with focus on nothing more than the Voltage that finally arrives at the output of some signal source (without any help from Bybee), don't we all know it mightly true that anything plopped in series with any part of the end reproduction circuitry that doesn't make any measurable difference is (not probably) bull? If there is a measurable difference, everyone can understand it in the same way as any other measurable difference used in analysis of equipment of the entire audio industry. When physical analysis is fully complete, we should know fairly precisely the ratio of actual performance versus influence of expectation we're talking about here. If anyone is actually interested in this thing from a true performance perspective, that's what they're interested in. Anyone can believe that their billion dollar clock radio is the best sound possible. It just wont be a generally useful thing to have happen.
But anyway, since the design of electronic systems involving millions of transistors and probably a hundreds of thousand passive devices were required in order to get any available recording to your ear, and these systems are all designed with focus on nothing more than the Voltage that finally arrives at the output of some signal source (without any help from Bybee), don't we all know it mightly true that anything plopped in series with any part of the end reproduction circuitry that doesn't make any measurable difference is (not probably) bull? If there is a measurable difference, everyone can understand it in the same way as any other measurable difference used in analysis of equipment of the entire audio industry. When physical analysis is fully complete, we should know fairly precisely the ratio of actual performance versus influence of expectation we're talking about here. If anyone is actually interested in this thing from a true performance perspective, that's what they're interested in. Anyone can believe that their billion dollar clock radio is the best sound possible. It just wont be a generally useful thing to have happen.
FWIW, I agree with Jkeny here. I think that measured results and listening results should be held mutually exclusive of one another.... and blind to each other.
This whole experiment is likely to be fraught with claims and counter-claims (!), which will only frustrate members and likely lead to banning! Why not avoid that possibility and keep the results of SY's measurements secret until the results of the listening tests are back.
Fran
Fran
This whole experiment is likely to be fraught with claims and counter-claims (!), which will only frustrate members and likely lead to banning! Why not avoid that possibility and keep the results of SY's measurements secret until the results of the listening tests are back.
Fran
Fran
Yes, Andrew, was there not talk of splitting off a separate thread to discuss these issues? I can't find it.
Let me state my bias up front. I don't believe that these Bybees will do what they say. But I'm open to be wrong about this. But not unlike the right to free speech - even though I don't like what's being said, I agree with the freedom to say it.
So even though my expectation is that there will probably be no measurable differences found, I believe that a fair test should be carried out & this fairness entails being aware of the scientific & psychological determinants of testing procedures. I don't believe that this procedure is fair. Why not just dispense with the listening tests altogether - they are worthless in their present form for the reasons stated?
Let me state my bias up front. I don't believe that these Bybees will do what they say. But I'm open to be wrong about this. But not unlike the right to free speech - even though I don't like what's being said, I agree with the freedom to say it.
So even though my expectation is that there will probably be no measurable differences found, I believe that a fair test should be carried out & this fairness entails being aware of the scientific & psychological determinants of testing procedures. I don't believe that this procedure is fair. Why not just dispense with the listening tests altogether - they are worthless in their present form for the reasons stated?
Here is my impression of the arguments against listening tests. To me they represent an intellectually dishonest approach to testing the Bybees. The effect induced by the device is primarily a sonic one. It "implies" an effect that can be measured on lab equipment but the implication is no different than trying to measure TIM distortion in amps in the years before Matti Otala defined it. You could hear the distortion easily but people were brainwashed to believe what they heard was unimportant because otherwise bad sounding amps measure well in terms of total harmonic distortion. Please don't take this analogy literally as so many people always do. It is more like an IQ test where the question is item if #1 is to item #2 as #item #3 is to item #4?
The REAL bias is to ignore what you hear because you presently do not know how to quantify it.
I should also say that those who say the listening test must be biased are introducing a red herring. I introduced a method way back in this thread where the listening familiarization of systems could be done on either a modified or an unmodified system. The listeners would not know which was the baseline they were hearing. Also the listeners would be divided into two groups - one group familiarizing themselves on a modified system and one not.
When the actual listening test is then done both groups would be brought together and hear the same equipment in both modified and unmodified form.
This type of test eliminates the bias of knowing that you are listening to a modified system. The final result, if there is a significant correlation in sound quality, either good or bad due to the mod, will be that one group of the listeners will hear the test and think one system sounds like they remember it and that the other system sounds better. The other group will think one system sounds they remember and that the other system sounds worse. There is no inherent bias in this type of test based on knowing that the system is modified.
Last edited:
Yes, the problem is that the listening test, in a controlled, repeatable way, will never happen. It has been tried several times here, but always something came up or it just petered out or whatever.
It's VERY difficult to organise and set up a well controlled, repeatable listening test. You're free to do it, but it is unreasonable to hold the results of the measurements hostage to a listening test that won't happen in our lifetime.
jan didden
It's VERY difficult to organise and set up a well controlled, repeatable listening test. You're free to do it, but it is unreasonable to hold the results of the measurements hostage to a listening test that won't happen in our lifetime.
jan didden
Well, I'm on the outside looking in as these things go. Last I remember my offer of help was rejected along these lines. I don't take those things lightly. However, I'd be glad to assist Panomaniac in setting up his listening test with outside listeners along the lines I've described. I think the basic framework I've describe is pretty self explanatory. Only the details need to be filled in. Since Pano will be doing most of the physical work I'm sure he wants to have a say in how he implements the details. Hopefully he will take my cue about the framework to set it up so he can eliminate any biased framing of the results. Ultimately it is up to him though.
Personally I am going to do what you guys will call a crude listening test. I am going to hook them up and go back and forth with alligator clips to see if I hear a difference. I could give a rats @$$ whether or not any of you feel there's validity in that sort of testing, I am simply trying to make an observation. I am interested if they make a difference and if they do is it a difference that adds or subtracts from my listening enjoyment? When you get right down to it, what they are made of or how they work makes no difference. They are usually purchased with an interest in improving the sound. The only instrument that can tell me that is of course my ears. I have a gut feeling I will hear a difference but the answer to the question will only be revealed when it's my turn.
OK, Jan, I see, so total reliability on measurements, then. Are you sure these measurements can reveal all that is heard or is it just a hope? I'll bow out now as I've been here before
I didn't say that measurements can reveal all that is heard. But let's face it: so far we have NO controlled, repeatable tests that indicate that there IS anything audible. So, far, we have subjective, anecdotal accounts and marketing.
But one thing is sure: if there IS an audible effect, it can ONLY come from an electrical effect on the signal (unless you assume an ESP effect which I think nobodey has so far). You can't hear a difference unless there is an electrical difference. The measurements try to find that difference. if they find it, you know that there is a possibility that there is an audible effect. If there's no measureable difference, we still are no wiser than before. because nobody is going to do a controlled repeatable test. Not you or any others.
jan didden
Sure Cal. Absoutely, even. And your take on the matter embodies what makes me laugh when an audio company tries to market anything they produce as "the best". It's funny, because there have to be no less than a million different ways of doing a real nice audio system from front to back. But I thought for this thread we were interested in Measurement and Analysis. If the result interferes with someones take on reality now or in the future, well what should we do, wait until it can't? When might that be?
The purpose of this thread is to analyze the sonic effects of the BQPs. Summary so far....
* We're gonna test it using the scientific method
* "Measurements aren't the be-all but they are valid because the offer a baseline for unbiased comparison"
* Organised listening tests can only ever offer statistical data with no provisio for margin of error.
* There are plans to do a DBT; it might happen, it might not; people think it should but one one has really stepped up to the plate to call for volunteers or to actually do the work to document the process, propose a test methodology and get the logistics sorted out.
We've managed to fill 64 pages with those four points... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ....
... and over again.
Dead horse... RIP (for the love of God, PLEASE!!!!!).
If you have something to bring to the table that involves the analysis of the BQPs that's great but let's try to stick to the scientific method.
Whether you think that is fair or not is irrelevant. The scientific method is a universally accepted process for making observations and presenting the data against a baseline for intelligent discussion.
Anything less is just wagging your chin for the sake of it.
</rant>
* We're gonna test it using the scientific method
* "Measurements aren't the be-all but they are valid because the offer a baseline for unbiased comparison"
* Organised listening tests can only ever offer statistical data with no provisio for margin of error.
* There are plans to do a DBT; it might happen, it might not; people think it should but one one has really stepped up to the plate to call for volunteers or to actually do the work to document the process, propose a test methodology and get the logistics sorted out.
We've managed to fill 64 pages with those four points... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ....
... and over again.
Dead horse... RIP (for the love of God, PLEASE!!!!!).
If you have something to bring to the table that involves the analysis of the BQPs that's great but let's try to stick to the scientific method.
Whether you think that is fair or not is irrelevant. The scientific method is a universally accepted process for making observations and presenting the data against a baseline for intelligent discussion.
Anything less is just wagging your chin for the sake of it.
</rant>
Last edited:
Hi dfidler,
You forgot the opening <rant> tag.
I do agree with the gist of what you are saying though. This is no place to argue whether or not the testing is valid or not. Various tests will be performed by various people. The results will be posted as well as the method used to obtain whatever results are reported.
Those people who know how to set these tests up and are familiar with the equipment types used are qualified to comment. Those who don't understand how the equipment types are used are not qualified to comment simply on the basis that they don't like what the conclusions are. If anyone is so bothered by any results, it's time for them to educate themselves on procedures and equipment and try it themselves. That may involve buying some of these objects as well.
That is the price of an opinion that matters where test results are concerned.
-Chris
You forgot the opening <rant> tag.
I do agree with the gist of what you are saying though. This is no place to argue whether or not the testing is valid or not. Various tests will be performed by various people. The results will be posted as well as the method used to obtain whatever results are reported.
Those people who know how to set these tests up and are familiar with the equipment types used are qualified to comment. Those who don't understand how the equipment types are used are not qualified to comment simply on the basis that they don't like what the conclusions are. If anyone is so bothered by any results, it's time for them to educate themselves on procedures and equipment and try it themselves. That may involve buying some of these objects as well.
That is the price of an opinion that matters where test results are concerned.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.