Eric,
you are still either not understanding what I am discussing, or
you are deliberately avoiding to discuss it. Seem that once
again we'd better leave it at that and conclude that this is how it
is and that we cannot even agree on what we are discussing.
BTW, sure I could ask more questions about what differences
you hear, but I think you are already reporting quite a lot of
that, so I don't find a serious shortage of information about
that.
you are still either not understanding what I am discussing, or
you are deliberately avoiding to discuss it. Seem that once
again we'd better leave it at that and conclude that this is how it
is and that we cannot even agree on what we are discussing.
BTW, sure I could ask more questions about what differences
you hear, but I think you are already reporting quite a lot of
that, so I don't find a serious shortage of information about
that.
Eric,
It actually depends on what you mean by dismissing validity.
I do not take a subjective finding as a proof of something
even if I am experiencing it myself. If I think I hear
a differnce I may consider it more or less plausible that there
is actually a difference, depending on circumstances etc. However,
I would not say I am certain that there is beyond any doubt
a difference unless this can be established with a proper blind
test or other suitable proof method. On the other hand, I do
absolutely not rule out that there may be an actual audible
difference just because there is no proof. The point is simply
that as long as we have only subjective findings, we cannot
know for sure if there is a real difference or just an imagined
one. Psychological bias is a very real thing. I do think you are
right that one can learn to reduce this effect, but I do not
think one can eliminate it or even reduce it to a "safe" level.
I do not require measurements, in fact I do not even think
measurements can prove whether something is audible or
not since we do not know how to correlate measurements
to perception. However, proofs in the form of blind tests or
other psychometric methods are probably necessary to
establish for sure if something is audible or not. On the other
hand, I do not require a proof that something works before
I consider using it if my subjective experience is such that
I convince myself to a sufficient degree, sufficient for me that
is, that it probably does work.
It actually depends on what you mean by dismissing validity.
I do not take a subjective finding as a proof of something
even if I am experiencing it myself. If I think I hear
a differnce I may consider it more or less plausible that there
is actually a difference, depending on circumstances etc. However,
I would not say I am certain that there is beyond any doubt
a difference unless this can be established with a proper blind
test or other suitable proof method. On the other hand, I do
absolutely not rule out that there may be an actual audible
difference just because there is no proof. The point is simply
that as long as we have only subjective findings, we cannot
know for sure if there is a real difference or just an imagined
one. Psychological bias is a very real thing. I do think you are
right that one can learn to reduce this effect, but I do not
think one can eliminate it or even reduce it to a "safe" level.
I do not require measurements, in fact I do not even think
measurements can prove whether something is audible or
not since we do not know how to correlate measurements
to perception. However, proofs in the form of blind tests or
other psychometric methods are probably necessary to
establish for sure if something is audible or not. On the other
hand, I do not require a proof that something works before
I consider using it if my subjective experience is such that
I convince myself to a sufficient degree, sufficient for me that
is, that it probably does work.
"It actually depends on what you mean by dismissing validity. I do not take a subjective finding as a proof of something even if I am experiencing it myself. If I think I hear a difference I may consider it more or less plausible that there is actually a difference, depending on circumstances etc.
That's when you get in and do a heap of A/B comparisons to practice and enhance your discrimination - a learned skill.
When you have developed sufficient skill you can detect changes reliably.
However, I would not say I am certain that there is beyond any doubt a difference unless this can be established with a proper blind test or other suitable proof method.
You have not learned to be reliably discriminating yet, and to trust your abilities.
Listeners with high levels of discrimination perform highly in blind tests, and novice listeners often do not - I find that novices do not know what to listen for and this reflects in their scores.
On the other hand, I do absolutely not rule out that there may be an actual audible difference just because there is no proof. The point is simply that as long as we have only subjective findings, we cannot know for sure if there is a real difference or just an imagined one.
If the samples are skilled and experienced listeners results in discriminating subjective differences is reliable.
Preferences is another matter - I spoke of Kimber teflon insulated cables - the dealer who supplied them likes them and describes them as "are very detailed in the mids"
I can't stand them because of what I regard as an un-natural mids empasis and teflon characteristic sonic hardness.
So, two people are describing the same sonic differences in subjectively different ways.
Psychological bias is a very real thing. I do think you are right that one can learn to reduce this effect, but I do not
think one can eliminate it or even reduce it to a "safe" level.
With appropriate practice I'll bet you can.
I do not require measurements, in fact I do not even think measurements can prove whether something is audible or not since we do not know how to correlate measurements to perception. However, proofs in the form of blind tests or other psychometric methods are probably necessary to establish for sure if something is audible or not.
Two problems here - odd subjective findings that are hither to not measurable does not mean that they are not true.
More it means that appropriate testing methods need to be devised.
The other problem is that blind tests are most certainly not by definition reliable due to a bunch of reasons including skill levels of the listeners when examining fine differences.
On the other hand, I do not require a proof that something works before I consider using it if my subjective experience is such that I convince myself to a sufficient degree, sufficient for me that is, that it probably does work.
You should not be needing to convince yourself - with skill you should be able to discriminate differences quickly, and also quickly decide if you like such a new sound.
Sure, if you like the way something subjectively works then how it works is of little real importance.
Knowing how something works is useful for purposes other than sonic enjoyment.
Christer, do much more really fine level A/B comparison practicing (on the fly component changes are good for this), and learn to trust in yourself and your abilities.
Eric.
That's when you get in and do a heap of A/B comparisons to practice and enhance your discrimination - a learned skill.
When you have developed sufficient skill you can detect changes reliably.
However, I would not say I am certain that there is beyond any doubt a difference unless this can be established with a proper blind test or other suitable proof method.
You have not learned to be reliably discriminating yet, and to trust your abilities.
Listeners with high levels of discrimination perform highly in blind tests, and novice listeners often do not - I find that novices do not know what to listen for and this reflects in their scores.
On the other hand, I do absolutely not rule out that there may be an actual audible difference just because there is no proof. The point is simply that as long as we have only subjective findings, we cannot know for sure if there is a real difference or just an imagined one.
If the samples are skilled and experienced listeners results in discriminating subjective differences is reliable.
Preferences is another matter - I spoke of Kimber teflon insulated cables - the dealer who supplied them likes them and describes them as "are very detailed in the mids"
I can't stand them because of what I regard as an un-natural mids empasis and teflon characteristic sonic hardness.
So, two people are describing the same sonic differences in subjectively different ways.
Psychological bias is a very real thing. I do think you are right that one can learn to reduce this effect, but I do not
think one can eliminate it or even reduce it to a "safe" level.
With appropriate practice I'll bet you can.
I do not require measurements, in fact I do not even think measurements can prove whether something is audible or not since we do not know how to correlate measurements to perception. However, proofs in the form of blind tests or other psychometric methods are probably necessary to establish for sure if something is audible or not.
Two problems here - odd subjective findings that are hither to not measurable does not mean that they are not true.
More it means that appropriate testing methods need to be devised.
The other problem is that blind tests are most certainly not by definition reliable due to a bunch of reasons including skill levels of the listeners when examining fine differences.
On the other hand, I do not require a proof that something works before I consider using it if my subjective experience is such that I convince myself to a sufficient degree, sufficient for me that is, that it probably does work.
You should not be needing to convince yourself - with skill you should be able to discriminate differences quickly, and also quickly decide if you like such a new sound.
Sure, if you like the way something subjectively works then how it works is of little real importance.
Knowing how something works is useful for purposes other than sonic enjoyment.
Christer, do much more really fine level A/B comparison practicing (on the fly component changes are good for this), and learn to trust in yourself and your abilities.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
Which is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim. You may believe
this to be the case, perhaps it is even the case, but AFAIK there
is no evidence of this claim being true.
I agree I do not have that much training in this respect. However,
I would most certainly not trust my abilities to 100% however
much training I had. Why is it so impossible for you to accept
that it could just as well be you overestimating you discrimination
skills? I am not saying that is necessarily the case, but it
cannot be ruled out. Trusting onself beyond doubt in whatever
topic is usually just a sign one hasn't yet reached the level of
experience where one realizes that one isn't infallible.
As long as there is something that can be detected, yes, then
training will most likely improve discrimination skills.
Same comment as to the first point. This is just an
unsubstantiated claim.
Preferences is a different matter. That is necessarily subjective,
but unless there is an objective difference there is nothing to
have preferences about.
Would you be prepared to bet large sums on this. I think I
or someone else could earn some easy money here by setting up
some experiment.
Assuming there is actually an audible diffence, not just a
subjective one then I quite agree with this and have said
so myself a couple of times in other threads.
That is a common argument and I do not necessarily dismiss
it. A typical controlled blind test may for instance introduce
stress factors that influences the results. This is why I said
blind test or other psycometric methods. I am not sure what
might be a suitable way of doing such tests. I think the setup
Steve, Frank and you are about to do is suitable and it seems
everybody agrees on this being a reasonable method.
Quite agree on this, and even if it doesn't work but one thinks
it does it can give enjoyment. A placebo effect is also an effect.
However, even I think my health improves from takin sugar
pills, I should not recommend that as treatment for other people.
Christer, do much more really fine level A/B comparison practicing (on the fly component changes are good for this), and learn to trust in yourself and your abilities.
But the question is, does one really learn to realiably discriminate
or does one learn to delude oneself. Some things are clearly
possible to discriminate, but other more subtle ones are more
problematic. How can we know if there is really something we
do hear or if we are just imagining, unless some kind of
experiment is conducted to settle the matter?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I note that as usual you focus all you comments on the learned
skills, which is not really the problem in my opinion. I commented
on this in another thread a few days ago, but I don't know if
you read that. For something to make an audible difference,
there are at least three things that must happen. 1) There must
be some physical difference (in the air pressure function) for
the ears to detect. If there is no such difference, then clearly
there can be no audible difference. 2) The physical ears must
have the capability to detect this difference such that it results
in a different stimulus pattern to the brain. If the stimuli are
the same, then the difference can't be audible. 3) The brain
must be able to process the stimuli patterns and recognize
the difference. The learned skills you talk about are only
applicable to part 3 in this chain, the brain, and I have absoluletly
no problem with that one. The brain can be trained to quite
extreme capabilities, at least in some individuals. I know this
from my own experience with other things than judging audio
equipment. However, the big question mark for me, and probably
for Steve and many others is with parts 1 and 2 in the chain,
and these are not things that can be trained. I think this is at
the root of many misunderstandings. You think we question your
ability to train your brain, while we, or I at least, rather question
parts 1 and 2 in the chain, which has nothing to do with trained
skills. If a certain change in the equipment results in exactly
the same air pressure variations at your ears as before the
change and you claim to hear a difference, then obviously this
is an imagination. So the big question about subtle things like
cable directionality, different resistor brands etc. is whether
the do cause a difference in parts 1 and 2 in the perception
change.
The Answers Are In The Noise............
"1) There must be some physical difference (in the air pressure function) for the ears to detect. If there is no such difference, then clearly there can be no audible difference."
Yes.
"2) The physical ears must have the capability to detect this difference such that it results in a different stimulus pattern to the brain. If the stimuli are the same, then the difference can't be audible."
Yes, but how are you to determine that these stimuli are in fact identical .
"3) The brain must be able to process the stimuli patterns and recognize the difference. The learned skills you talk about are only applicable to part 3 in this chain, the brain, and I have absoluletly no problem with that one. The brain can be trained to quite extreme capabilities, at least in some individuals."
The key thing to listen for when differentiating, is patterns in the sounds and the differences in these patterns - profound statement and please take note.
Understand that astronomy regularly picks seemingly hopelessly buried patterns out of what on first inspection appears as completely random noise.
Also understand that the brain is also very powerful at detecting patterns below the noise floor - this is the reason for digital dithering - ie randomising and thereby concealing low level errors.
I am saying that ear/brains can pick out stuff that standard test instruments cannot, so to rely only on test instrument results can be folly.
Delusion is not the only reason for all subjective findings, never has been and never will be.
Eric.
Anyway it still has not been shown to me why QP's cannot possibly have some kind of sonic effect on a system.
"1) There must be some physical difference (in the air pressure function) for the ears to detect. If there is no such difference, then clearly there can be no audible difference."
Yes.
"2) The physical ears must have the capability to detect this difference such that it results in a different stimulus pattern to the brain. If the stimuli are the same, then the difference can't be audible."
Yes, but how are you to determine that these stimuli are in fact identical .
"3) The brain must be able to process the stimuli patterns and recognize the difference. The learned skills you talk about are only applicable to part 3 in this chain, the brain, and I have absoluletly no problem with that one. The brain can be trained to quite extreme capabilities, at least in some individuals."
The key thing to listen for when differentiating, is patterns in the sounds and the differences in these patterns - profound statement and please take note.
Understand that astronomy regularly picks seemingly hopelessly buried patterns out of what on first inspection appears as completely random noise.
Also understand that the brain is also very powerful at detecting patterns below the noise floor - this is the reason for digital dithering - ie randomising and thereby concealing low level errors.
I am saying that ear/brains can pick out stuff that standard test instruments cannot, so to rely only on test instrument results can be folly.
Delusion is not the only reason for all subjective findings, never has been and never will be.
Eric.
Anyway it still has not been shown to me why QP's cannot possibly have some kind of sonic effect on a system.
Christer,
I have a hard time getting through the long posts. However, I think it really odd that we require audio professionals to do blind tests. As you are aware, I enjoy orchestral music. I would think it odd to require violinists, trumpet players, the conductor, or composer to do blind tests of their instruments. If they want to do it, fine, it's their prerogative. Whatever way they want to create sound and music is up to them. If people wish to understand how they do it, it's up to the rest of us nuts. I think you are directing unreasonable burden towards Eric. Again, he is simply reporting what his group finds most musical.
JF
I have a hard time getting through the long posts. However, I think it really odd that we require audio professionals to do blind tests. As you are aware, I enjoy orchestral music. I would think it odd to require violinists, trumpet players, the conductor, or composer to do blind tests of their instruments. If they want to do it, fine, it's their prerogative. Whatever way they want to create sound and music is up to them. If people wish to understand how they do it, it's up to the rest of us nuts. I think you are directing unreasonable burden towards Eric. Again, he is simply reporting what his group finds most musical.
JF
Eric,
For part 2 of the chain, I didn't mean we should try to measure
or find out if there is a difference in stimuli. I simply wanted to
point out that if there is in in fact a difference in part 1, it must
be withing the capability of the ear to detect this difference.
For part 3, yes you are quite right that the brain can use
averaging dithering and all sorts of things to extract information
below the noise floor etc. I have read somewhere that skilled
radio surveillance operators can sometimes follow a conversation
some 40dB below the noise floor. Calling that impressive is
an undestatement, in my opiinion, so yes, the brain has quite
extraordinary capabilities. However, as I said previously, I am
not questioning the brain part of the chain. The interesting
thing with those subtle things some people claim audible,
direction of cables etc. is whether they actually can make a
difference in part 1 and 2 of the perception chain, since if
they cannot, then there is no audible difference however
good your brain is.
For part 2 of the chain, I didn't mean we should try to measure
or find out if there is a difference in stimuli. I simply wanted to
point out that if there is in in fact a difference in part 1, it must
be withing the capability of the ear to detect this difference.
For part 3, yes you are quite right that the brain can use
averaging dithering and all sorts of things to extract information
below the noise floor etc. I have read somewhere that skilled
radio surveillance operators can sometimes follow a conversation
some 40dB below the noise floor. Calling that impressive is
an undestatement, in my opiinion, so yes, the brain has quite
extraordinary capabilities. However, as I said previously, I am
not questioning the brain part of the chain. The interesting
thing with those subtle things some people claim audible,
direction of cables etc. is whether they actually can make a
difference in part 1 and 2 of the perception chain, since if
they cannot, then there is no audible difference however
good your brain is.
johnferrier said:
I don't require them to do any blind tests, I am just saying that
without a blind test or other similar experiment there is no
evidence of the claims they make. Since Eric (and some others)
do claim certain things to be beyond doubt audible based on
the assumption on the perfection of his listening skills, and
his claim that he can avoid all psycological bias, which I think
no psychologist would agree with, he does have a proof burden
if he wants to insist on this. Is it even physically possible to
hear the direction of a cable as he claims? Maybe it is, but
since nobody has produced even an embryo of a plausible
explanation for why this could be possible, I really cannot
see how he could expect us to believe his claim as a fact.
For this particular case there is, however, a blind test planned
which he will participate in, which will be very interesting to follow.
I think your example with musicians is not quite relevant here.
Few musicians or serious listeners have any doubt that
instruments do sound different, and the choice of instruments
is anyway a subjective one. There is no objective way of telling
if a Stradivarius sounds better than a Guernari, for instance. It
is a matter of taste. On the other hand, I would think there is no
problem to establish by measurements that they do indeed
sound different. BTW, as far as I know, the auditions when
hiring new musicians for orchestras is usually done blind, by
letting the applicants play behind a curtain so the "jury"
doesn't know which applicant they are listening to, so it seems
that musicians, or at least those who hire them, are very much
aware of the problems with psycological bias.
Christer said:
But last I read, they still do not know why the Stradivarius violins sound the way they do. And I think Eric involvement with this forum is to try to learn about the differences he notices. If it takes as long as it has to learn about the Stradivarius, he (Steve, you, I) will have a very long wait.
JF
johnferrier said:
In the context of The Great Debate, it's not a matter of waiting around to figure out WHY something sounds the way it does. But rather a matter of whether there are any audibly discernable differences at all.
What sounds better or why something sounds the way it does is a whole other matter.
se
Okay, I certainly have extended myself a bit (and don't wish to draw this out more).
Steve, your test will be very interesting. I'm glad you received the wire. I'm interested in placing an order with Percy too (for ladder attenuators--either a stereo or dual monos--my design has not finalized).
Also, I think that blind tests are a bit tricky. It may seem simpler than it really is. The test you guys are cooking up seems like a good start.
JF
Steve, your test will be very interesting. I'm glad you received the wire. I'm interested in placing an order with Percy too (for ladder attenuators--either a stereo or dual monos--my design has not finalized).
Also, I think that blind tests are a bit tricky. It may seem simpler than it really is. The test you guys are cooking up seems like a good start.
JF
johnferrier said:
Actually I haven't received it yet. It's shipping today so hopefully tomorrow.
Don't worry about ordering from Michael. Things can get a bit hectic for him and orders don't always ship as soon as some would like, but he's honest and reliable and as far as I'm aware, he's never screwed a customer.
What I like about this test is that it allows the listeners to evaluate the cables in exactly the same fashion as they would otherwise.
se
JF, you made a good assessment of the situation.
I have a small aside that I might insert: About 28 years ago, I was attending a concert in Switzerland and I heard this INCREDIBLE violin being played. I whispered to my wife-to-be next to me, who was a violinist, what was going on? She said: "That is your first STRAD, John." Now it wasn't my first, but it certainly was the best.
Understanding STRAD's, or understanding hi fi, is harder than it would first appear to be. Unfortunately, SE is arguing with us, from a CONCLUSION that he has already made, that there aren't any serious differences in audio components, and therefore we all must be notmeasuring things correctly, or we are psychologically motivated to find differences, when they are really nonexistant. I find that successful audio designers need to go with 'what works' rather than doggedly state that it is all the same. Why, I don't know, but the results speak for themselves.
I have a small aside that I might insert: About 28 years ago, I was attending a concert in Switzerland and I heard this INCREDIBLE violin being played. I whispered to my wife-to-be next to me, who was a violinist, what was going on? She said: "That is your first STRAD, John." Now it wasn't my first, but it certainly was the best.
Understanding STRAD's, or understanding hi fi, is harder than it would first appear to be. Unfortunately, SE is arguing with us, from a CONCLUSION that he has already made, that there aren't any serious differences in audio components, and therefore we all must be notmeasuring things correctly, or we are psychologically motivated to find differences, when they are really nonexistant. I find that successful audio designers need to go with 'what works' rather than doggedly state that it is all the same. Why, I don't know, but the results speak for themselves.
johnferrier said:
That's a very interesting topic, but also a very different one
from what we have been discussing. I don't think there is
much reason to be surprised that different violins (or other
instruments) sound different. A violin is structurally very complex
and there are many many parameters that are likely to affect
its sound, the exact physical dimensions and thickness of its
parts, the exact type of wood, the lacquer etc. etc. I don't
know if it has been done, but I guess it would be possible
to make some kind of CAD model of a violin and simulate its
acoustic behaviour. I don't mean we would manage to accurately
simulate a real violin, but I guess such a simulation would
show how very minor changes to the physical build can alter
the acoustic behaviour. I recently read about a computer program
that was claimed to very accurately predict how a brass (and
maybe also woodwind) instrument will behave and sound. I
have no idea if it is as good as claimed, but it was done as
academic research and not as a commercial product and it
was intended as an aid to actually build better instruments
and even tailor them to the preferences of individual musicians.
In contrast, in the case of audio we have people claiming to
hear differences between various things where noone has
been able to come up with any plausible reason how there
could be a difference at all, based on current understanfing of
physics, and where no measurements has been able to reveal
a difference. I am not prepared to be so bold as to claim that
hence there cannot be any audible difference, but clearly it
is everything but obvious that it should be possible for the
human ear to hear a difference in these cases.
Edit: I didn't see Johns post since we were obviusly typing in
parallel. Funny though, I think what I just wrote could almost
as well have been a comment on what he wrote.
john curl said:
There is no CONCLUSION on my part, John. That's a complete fabrication on your part. Why is it you never address what I actually say but instead only slay these straw man fabrications you create?
And by the way, it has been demonstrated that there are audible differences between violins and that these differences are rather trivially measurable.
I have never said it is all the same. And in spite of my having made this clear to you dozens of times over the years, you persist in these same straw man fabrications to this day.
I perceive differences myself. And I also go with "what works" for me.
What I don't do is turn around and make huge leaps of illogic and automatically assume that just because I have subjectively perceived some difference that it must therefore be due to some actual audible difference.
I don't know if it is or it isn't. But I do know that there's enough psychology involved with our subjective perceptions that it's just blind religious dogma to assume one or the other.
You're the one with the CONCLUSION, John. You conclude that everything's audible in spite of the fact that as yet there is no clear, convincing objective evidence to support it.
I prefer to keep an open mind.
se
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.