John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[Jakob2]

Originally Posted by SY

The listener claims he can hear differences under sighted conditions, unrelated to frequency response and level, with his choice of material and with his system.

I am afraid, but different test conditions compared to the "claim conditions" require validation of the test. Positive controls are a must have; training sessions are preferrable too.

Like every other listener who has made such a claim, he has yet to demonstrate he can do it by ear alone. Like most others who feel their reputation is at stake, he does not want to test his hypothesis.

Listeners do not want to test their (listening)hypothesis, and experimenters obviously do not want to validate their tests.

Really, there's no need to obfuscate a very simple question.

I totally agree, their is no need for obfuscation; positive/negative controls are mandatory for this sort of test.

[SY]

There may be no need to obfuscate, but that doesn't mean that someone won't avail themselves of the opportunity.

[john curl]

I rarely see so much repetition in a challenge, what is the point?

[SY]

There is no point, that's the point.

[morinix]

[morinix]

Unless there is a very specific aspect of audio to be tested for like "which one has more bass" DBT testing get nothing except a circus like this thread lately

[jcx]

..their real theory, intellectual framework, supporting experiments then you aren't participating in a dialog - just political/religious rants trading sound bites, waving the bloody shirt to rally your base

why make statements in ignorance of the literature - someone is sure to point to links disproving your assertion

discriminating very small ~ 0.1 dB level difference - not generally identifiable as a perceived loudness difference - does emerge from the statistics - even if the participants can't articulate why they are identifying A vs B
ABX Amplitude vs. Frequency Matching Criteria

distortion with differing profiles, way below 1% were even ranked, correlated with a simple formula in Geddes work on the GedLee Metric
Perception

psychoacoustic lossy CODECs, "MP3" and better ones are totally DBT driven in their development
MP3'Tech - www.mp3-tech.org
Hydrogenaudio Forums - Portal ran public audio CODEC tests (largely abandoned for higher bit rates - due to lack of significant results as they have improved)

JAES articles do require a uni library or AES membership for cheap access, JASA has more of the stuff that becomes psychoacoustic textbook material

[RNMarsh]

I guess a different question might be -- is there any other way, than dbt, to hear differences or to hear anything for certain? Which other legit ways are there? Do such ways exist now? If such other tests do exist, what do they test for?
[i've already given examples]

Then ask your self ("self") is there a single - one - test that we could do which would tell us the sum total of all the many years research on masking, harmonic thresholds, acoustics and perceptions etc etc etc? Like the meaning of life itself.... we want the simple answere that covers it all.

-RNM

[morinix]

After test and measurement vetting I like Rupert Neve's method "I hook it up and play music and do other things" - Passive listening - That is, IME, the only way to distract your brain from worldly things so that that audio zen moment can grab your hearing-brain connection and get a clear evaluation. Otherwise your brain is over analyzing. May not be "legit" but it is how I roll.

[bcarso]

Originally Posted by RNMarsh

I guess a different question might be -- is there any other way, than dbt, to hear differences or to hear anything for certain? Which other legit ways are there? Do such ways exist now? If such other tests do exist, what do they test for?
[i've already given examples]

Galvanic skin response? Blood pressure? EEG?

Only half-kidding.