So, it's back to the DBT loop......
What are the conditions of which particular DBT tests.....I hear a lot about them, but scarce actual detail.
I mean what is the environment like, the people involved, the music choices, the time periods ???.
I have not heard of DBTs where the subjects can kick back on their favorite chair, with a glass in one hand and a roach in the other....that's the real test.
Dan.
Any DBT you can do at home fits your criteria.
So for instance ABX, ABC/HR, PEAQ, MUHSRA, duo-trio, triangle the list goes on and on.
"I mean what is the environment like, the people involved, the music choices, the time periods ???.
I have not heard of DBTs where the subjects can kick back on their favorite chair, with a glass in one hand and a roach in the other....that's the real test."
With all the work you claim to be doing on various effects on audio reproduction, you appear to be willfully ignorant on methods of verification of differences!
Briefly, the only requirements of DBT are that NEITHER the test subjects nor the test supervisor know which item is being listened to.
Everything else - location, duration, libation are open.
How many times does this need to be explained?
I have not heard of DBTs where the subjects can kick back on their favorite chair, with a glass in one hand and a roach in the other....that's the real test."
With all the work you claim to be doing on various effects on audio reproduction, you appear to be willfully ignorant on methods of verification of differences!
Briefly, the only requirements of DBT are that NEITHER the test subjects nor the test supervisor know which item is being listened to.
Everything else - location, duration, libation are open.
How many times does this need to be explained?
Maybe i´m mistaken but it think that Max_Headroom isn´t asking what could be done (means in which way a test could be..) but instead what _had_ be done.
As long as people emphasize "DBT" as if the blind property is the most important one, chances are high that tests weren´t as good as they should be.
You should ask for good/sound experiments that give correct results (most likely) and "double blind" is just one attribute among a plurality.
I'll second that, anything where the participant has the intellectual honesty to say, "I don't know", would make me happy though substances are probably confounders.
So I gather all your statements are based on sighted testing, aren't you even curious?
Jakob, no offense taken.
Of course I cannot be 100% sure my answer is absolutely correct.
But 'my answer' is not just something I 'believe'. It is drawn from literally centuries of perception and psycho-acoustics and behavioral etc. research.
And as I sad, you can always argue points, but it isn't very nice to just ignore it and ask the seemingly innocent question 'why do people hear differences...'.
It's a like gravity. We have a reasonable idea how gravity 'works'. Am I 100% sure that this understanding is correct? No. But it beats the hell out of ignoring all gravity research and ask on a physics forum 'but then how come apples fall down from a tree'. At that forum, your credibility immediately drops to zero and you are ignored from there on. Here, it just repeats the cycle of disinterest and ignorance.
But maybe I should more follow SY's advice.
Jan
Others have answered the DBT query...
Have you tried to measure any difference? do you have a test which can be reproduced anywhere else, preferably not requiring artificially altered perception states..?
But that's the best part!
I think I had a drink in hand when I did the DBT of mp3 rates at Jan's.
Why are so many Olympians covered in large red circles? - BBC News
Olympians swear by cupping. Maybe this is the next high end tweak...
Olympians swear by cupping. Maybe this is the next high end tweak...
Why are you bothering? If someone is too lazy to look things up, they're too lazy to understand anything you're going to tell them.
Seriously, answer questions which are honest and sensible, ignore the others.
A layer of something secret that's being sold on the open market, you stich me up.......
I thought it dates from ages ago. I swear I saw it in Ken Russel's "The Devils (of Loudon)", inquisition times.
I do well understand, thank you.
That's what I am asking for.....written or first person accounts of actual tests, and what the participants felt about the tests and the environments.
Some here have been to the Harman tests, or JBL etc....got any inputs please ?.
None of what I am asking has been forthcoming previously.....usually unsubstantiated claims of (a) DBT test that gave (a) result, and (therefore) all DACs, Amps, cables etc etc sound the same.
More productive discussion would be reference to affirmative test outcomes where the expected was a null result.
I have serious doubts about comparators like the Van Alstine....are there alternatives ?.
Notably, no specs/measurements of the line level switching/level matching stages are available....why ?.
What was Harmans setup ?....I understand about the 'speaker mover', but nothing of the signal source, amplification, signal routing etc.
I ask this because the sound of my system is beautifully clean, clear, musical and alive....and wonderfully revealing of source changes.
If something is not quite right at the source end, the preamp/active speakers just say so, not in a bad way whatsoever, they just communicate that the source ain't quite right.
When the source is right, the system turns into a time machine....recordings that sound harsh/rotten/ear bleeding on most systems sound magical on mine......Robert Johnson is in my lounge room right now, Dave Brubeck is on his way
.Recordings that are done right, go to another level....3D to infinity out of two speakers, the 'demon' is in the details.
So, I am saying that inserting the likes of a Van Alstine comparator in circuit into my system might cast a mask over the system such that very fine differences could be hidden by the inevitable introduced signature/additional noise.....a confounder of fine ABX testing.
Dan.
Last edited:
I think a lot of folks here prefer to read without really understanding the full context and scope of the text.
Marce is asking for "evidence"!
Evidence of WHAT??
What I wrote is in the context of the endless Bybee bashing for some time before, and merely relates an anecdote that spoke to the situation. What I posed is a question, nothing more. Actually a series of questions aimed at delving into areas that do not yield well to "measurements".
A great many here seem to pretend to "know" and that in particular that I am "ignorant" and apparently too "lazy" to read the published papers. (practically none of which are cited) But, there is very little being said about anything of substance WRT to the issue that is dispositive, provides data, measurement, a theory, conjecture as to anything, other than APPARENTLY saying that all these alleged hearing events are false (they go away with a DBT) and so are mirages.
But when I ask, based on this sort of hypothesis, WHAT do I need in terms of hard solid specs (for specific components of as system or the whole system), or lacking that citations of GEAR that is deemed to be sufficiently identical and (again to borrow Doug Self's term) "blameless", what comes back??
Silence or derision.
An odd response from people who claim to "know".
This is the typical response from many professors who tell their students to "go read the textbook, and come back when you have a specific question". It's a poor response when professors give it, and no better here.
SY is the all knowing OZ and says ignore it.
He knows the answers, but will not say what they are.
The question is lacking?
Really?
_-_-
Marce is asking for "evidence"!
Evidence of WHAT??
What I wrote is in the context of the endless Bybee bashing for some time before, and merely relates an anecdote that spoke to the situation. What I posed is a question, nothing more. Actually a series of questions aimed at delving into areas that do not yield well to "measurements".
A great many here seem to pretend to "know" and that in particular that I am "ignorant" and apparently too "lazy" to read the published papers. (practically none of which are cited) But, there is very little being said about anything of substance WRT to the issue that is dispositive, provides data, measurement, a theory, conjecture as to anything, other than APPARENTLY saying that all these alleged hearing events are false (they go away with a DBT) and so are mirages.
But when I ask, based on this sort of hypothesis, WHAT do I need in terms of hard solid specs (for specific components of as system or the whole system), or lacking that citations of GEAR that is deemed to be sufficiently identical and (again to borrow Doug Self's term) "blameless", what comes back??
Silence or derision.
An odd response from people who claim to "know".
This is the typical response from many professors who tell their students to "go read the textbook, and come back when you have a specific question". It's a poor response when professors give it, and no better here.
SY is the all knowing OZ and says ignore it.
He knows the answers, but will not say what they are.
The question is lacking?
Really?
_-_-
- Status
- Not open for further replies.