“The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed.”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
In theory, forced choice can provide some statistical information on how you choose even when you are not fully confident. Maybe you somehow hear more than you are fully aware of, or maybe even though you may be unsure you might still be right more than half the time. Those kinds of things become more important as the test gets harder and differences are smaller.
Of course, you would more likely be able to be confident if you could listen while looping and switch between tracks without having to look. Anything that helps someone be less distracted and perform more accurately should be of interest to the experimenter, assuming of course the idea is to find out what the best you can do is, or to find out if two things with very small differences are ever distinguishable.
Of course, you would more likely be able to be confident if you could listen while looping and switch between tracks without having to look. Anything that helps someone be less distracted and perform more accurately should be of interest to the experimenter, assuming of course the idea is to find out what the best you can do is, or to find out if two things with very small differences are ever distinguishable.
Last edited:
Hah! This is funny. You are exactly the person I was thinking of regarding Debating. Must have read my mind.
THx-RNMarsh
Hard measured 'proof' is not easy to come by with a single test and measurement when it comes to a person's listening and what he/she can detect.
There is what YOU can hear - your own limits and ability. Another approach is to put forth a theory and let the majority try it out and give an opinion. A consensus may clearly develop. That majority is a truth also.
To be specific.. a case in point; Someone replaces a polar cap with a film cap and says, he/she detected a difference in the sound. Others do the same from other cultures, with different equip/systems and over time a consensus develops that there are detectable differences. This becomes a truth. Though some may have detected no difference in their system.
Then we look at the differences between the two type of caps and find there is a lot in common and are ruled out as the cause for the detectable differences. The largest characteristic difference, electrically, is the DA. The theory there is unproven as to cause but through a process of trial and elimination, makes it the most likely cause for the detectable differences.
THx-RNMarsh
Bandwagon effect, herd behavior. Really, just like the anti-vaxxers.
There is surely no consensus, this can be easily disproven by thousands of posts with different interpretations of component "sound" on this very forum. Nevermind the whole entire rest of the internet.
It's not about being closed minded - it's about not falling for logical fallacies.
There is surely no consensus, this can be easily disproven by thousands of posts with different interpretations of component "sound" on this very forum. Nevermind the whole entire rest of the internet.
It's not about being closed minded - it's about not falling for logical fallacies.
Last edited:
Different interpretations of the sound caused by changing from polar to pp.... doesnt matter. What matters is there is a detected difference.
-RNm
One thing that I always found quizzical - what's theory do ABX supporters have about people who have discovered the 'truth' (no difference) by doing an ABX test - do they still hear differences when they revert to sighted listening or do they now hear no difference?
In the first instance, their sighted bias is still operating (they perceive differences) so there's no point in doing such blind tests, they are slaves to their biases.
In the second instance, they now no longer hear differences in sighted listening so they have changed their bias. Have they neutralized their inherent bias? Or have they just replaced it with a bias which now believes there's no audible difference?
if the theory is that they have now neutralized their bias - the question is how? And why wouldn't this neutralization be possible without such blind test result?
In the first instance, their sighted bias is still operating (they perceive differences) so there's no point in doing such blind tests, they are slaves to their biases.
In the second instance, they now no longer hear differences in sighted listening so they have changed their bias. Have they neutralized their inherent bias? Or have they just replaced it with a bias which now believes there's no audible difference?
if the theory is that they have now neutralized their bias - the question is how? And why wouldn't this neutralization be possible without such blind test result?
Any paradigm shift in STEM had as a fundamental property it did not collide with the existing body of experimental knowledge, and it did not contradict the fundamental first principles. It was always a refinement of the current models that better fits the experimental data and made correct predictions, eventually validated by experiment.
Now, go ahead and discuss how does this apply to the audio Quantum Slipstream Bybee devices, Shakti stones, myrtle wood block risers, etc...
Don't think it does.
However, I do think we could easily refine how we do ABX, at least in some cases, in order to get more accurate results. A lot has been learned about human brains and perceptual testing over the years.
Also noticed Martin Mallinson, Scott's old friend says in effect in one of his youtube videos some people can hear tiny amounts of distortion that hardly seems possible, yet they can. Seems like there should be enough interest in learning more about how they do it, but nobody wants to pay for any research on it.
Unfortunately, it looks like people will be arguing on forums about this stuff for a long time to come.
Regarding your suggested test with 2 new SS 100kHz amps to see if anybody can hear a difference, maybe someone can and maybe depending on which 2 amps meeting your specifications are used. We will never find out, of course, because nobody will ever setup to do testing with people who might actually be able to differentiate the amps blind. I am thinking of people like very experienced mixing and mastering engineers. IME, most audiophiles are not as good at it as they may believe, although a few may be. The problem would be figuring out which ones would likely be worth testing. Chances of finding somebody would probably be easier if starting with people who listen to things like distortion for a living. Of course, we would probably need some funding to make it all happen and you know how that goes.
@Waly,
This demand/proposal is a good example for what i had on my mind when starting this thread.
It seems to be reasonable at a first glance (although raising imo a lot of questions ) but is yet quite unspecified especially wrt an accepted result (accepted as sufficient evidence).
This demand/proposal is a good example for what i had on my mind when starting this thread.
It seems to be reasonable at a first glance (although raising imo a lot of questions ) but is yet quite unspecified especially wrt an accepted result (accepted as sufficient evidence).
Yes, Martin and Dustin invited me to join them at ESS for an afternoon of listening. Unfortunately I could not manage it. My impression was that the listening tests were not done with the utmost rigor, they might even have been done sighted at times.
I really can't remember but some of the tests might have involved stock implementations by customers like OPPO which don't get universal praise here.
I don't see the purpose of searching for subtle differences without involving preference. Over the years I've listened to fairly elaborate systems put together by people that know and love music, they didn't even remotely sound the "same" in fact they were often highly colored to a particular taste. IMO there would be no problem in measuring some of the major differences or even agreeing as a group that they were there. This includes friends here. You often talk about folks liking subtle distortions, but let me assure you there are those that like gross ones too.
Last edited:
@Waly,
This demand/proposal is a good example for what i had on my mind when starting this thread.
It seems to be reasonable at a first glance (although raising imo a lot of questions ) but is yet quite unspecified especially wrt an accepted result (accepted as sufficient evidence) .
I suspect you already know the answer, even if you don't realize it.
There is no test that will ever guarantee the outcome will be universally valid. That is, if the result is "no difference was detected", this doesn't mean there isn't a Buryat shaman in Siberia that would be able to statistically reliable detect a difference.
The ABX results should be understood as "with X% probability, a difference cannot be identified" where X essentially depends on the auditory sample size. The larger the sample, the more certitude (in a probabilistic sense) but X it will never reach 100%, unless you are willing to somehow test the entire world population.
So any ABX test with a negative outcome will not exclude the hypothesis of one or more Golden Ears able to identify a difference. It will only say that if such a Golden Ear exists, it's unlikely that his abilities could be extrapolated to the rest of the mortals.
Reason why ABX tests are in general tilted toward implementing negative controls is that the opposite negative hypothesis is much easier to accept; that is, if a difference is detected, then it is easy to accept that a deaf individual, not hearing a damn thing, exists. This is another way to say that "exceptional claims require exceptional proof" and could easily mathematically put in terms of p and 1-p probabilities.
Last edited:
That's an important point. I've heard many systems that people praise highly, that have quite a different tonal balance from another highly praised system. Can they both be right? Walk around a big show like RMAF or Montreal and you'll hear high end systems that are tonally all over the place. Tonal balance is the first thing I notice, but it's not the only coloration/distortion, by far.
It´s an interesting answer overall as it shows some strong bias.
No, in general it shouldn´t be understood that way, but especially not given the way you worded your demand/proposal, as nothing indicated that it was meant to examine (or estimate) parameters for the underlying population.
Nevertheless as there is an ongoing discussion about the possibilities to "proof" a negative, i´m inclined to think that every well designed and well executed experiment adds to the body of knowledge, but this kind of experiments is quite rare in the audio field.
Is that really what the discussion over the decade was about? Extrapolation to the rest of mortals?
If we want to rely on statistical inference we could have long put the debate to rest bey taking the existing data, calculate estimations for the population parameters and construct distributions as well. Often a bit "dangerous" due to the small sample sizes but sometimes justified. But if you do so you´ll end very often with estimated distributions that naturally allow the existence of a small proportion of "super golden ears". Sums up to several tenthousand humans (even hundredthousands) all over the world.
So is that considered as sufficient evidence for it? I have my doubts....
I haven´t seen much ABXs where negative controls were included, some exceptions were those where the experimenters tried to use the SDT approach for analysis (hit and miss ratio calculation).
I assume we are talking about listening to music, so taking the example of power amplifiers, is there really an overwhelming evidence of (well planned and executed) experiments with negative results existent?
Because otherwise i wouldn´t consider it as a exeptional claim.
But additionally, i am very interested to learn what kind of positive result _you_ were considering as sufficient?
And when I said your question doesn’t make any sense unless the hypothesis under test is precisely and completely identified you dismissed the idea. Now you are questioning the hypothesis in my example and call me biased.
Hence, I’m afraid there is no basis for any intelligent discussion here. Discussions started with an agenda are not my cup of tea.
Hence, I’m afraid there is no basis for any intelligent discussion here. Discussions started with an agenda are not my cup of tea.
OT deserves imo an additional thread too
Given the fact that our (usual two channel stereophonic) reproduction is a very lossy version of reality that depends strongly on the experience and imagination ability (learned abilities) of the listeners i doubt that there can exist only one "right/correct" kind of reproduction that suits all humans.
Given the fact that our (usual two channel stereophonic) reproduction is a very lossy version of reality that depends strongly on the experience and imagination ability (learned abilities) of the listeners i doubt that there can exist only one "right/correct" kind of reproduction that suits all humans.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.