This is a good point. I think you must make a difference between his actual hearing mechanism, like external ears, eardrum, cilia, tympani etc. and the perceptive engine between those ears.
It stands to reason that the mechanical part, the ear etc, is not different in the two situations. But the great difference is in the perception engine; it now has a very different set of sensory inputs (if the test is done well, ONLY the sound and not things like vision and knowledge of which component is playing). So that can very much change the outcome.
In reality it is even more involved because the perception engine also has a feedback link to the ears, like to the cilia. So depending on what the perception engine 'thinks' or 'expects', (sorry for the pun) it can modify the ear parameters like supressing certain tones/levels and enhancing others. Remember, the brain is a prediction machine and will always try to 'fill in' the rest of the sheet from what it deduces from the first few lines.
jan didden
I agree with you.
I like to do quick A/B tests, without the X (see below), to help me find the differences between two components. Adding the random part just plays tricks to my mind in the hard task of finding SUBTLE differences.
Blind ABX works only when the differences are so big that even a deaf person (which usually match with one looking at the scope first) can hear them.
Once it is found that there are audible differences, it's often more difficult to decide what is BETTER, and that usually require a long-term listening of both DUTs.
This is OT but here goes: I get mine from OLIMEX Ltd. - Electronic Design and PCB sub-contract assembly OEM/ODM service , see 'proto boards'.
jan didden
The other point is, that after doing a controlled test, you cannot be sure either.
(SCNR)Due to the nature of statistical reasoning you will be only able to set some criteria for the error risks you are willing to accept. But of course, if your criterion is too tight, the risk to miss something existent will grow.
Beside that i really appreciated that you use the term "controlled" instead of "blind test" because the former phrase addresses a lot more points than the latter.
re: new Mariinsky Concert Hall
Picked up The Enchanted Wanderer and The Nose. Listened to the former and find the sound quality impressive. All recordings on the Mariinsky label are SA-CD. Wonder if vinyl enthusiasts would find such sound lacking ?
.
The other point is, that after doing a controlled test, you cannot be sure either.
Due to the nature of statistical reasoning you will be only able to set some criteria for the error risks you are willing to accept. But of course, if your criterion is too tight, the risk to miss something existent will grow.
[snip].
Yes, good to remind us of it. If a difference is heard it has a confidence associated to it, like: "we can say with 97% confidence that there IS an audible difference".
Then again, if no difference was heard, it doesn't mean there isn't any.
You can't prove a negative. But you know all that.
jan didden
Well done, Joshua. I'm glad that you went forward anyway, even though I had to wince a few times, when you (and I) were attacked, and people were using your academic background (or lack of it) against you with standard debating techniques. This is NOT a level playing field and everybody knows it.
Unfortunately, I do take an 'authoritarian' stance, often because I am a recognized authority on audio electronic design. I am certainly NOT the only authority on this, but I have earned that rating. However, my imperfect social skills sometimes paint me into a corner, where people will go after me on matters large and small, just to bring me down a peg.
The real problem here is a matter of 'belief'. This happens often in the history of science and psychology. Any study of the history of science will show where a dominant belief system AT THE TIME, virtually overwhelms any dissent, yet it will not last forever.
For example, Freudian Psychology, and its rigid practice of psychotherapy. When I was much younger I had 5 years of it. Boy, were they rigid! And opinionated too! While, I learned much about my self, in spite of the conditions and beliefs imposed on me, the use of a simple 'E-meter' would have facilitated getting to the 'root' of important problems much, much faster. Today, the idea of lying on a couch and telling an all knowing analyst about your 'mother' for example is almost laughable, YET it was everything, just a couple of generations ago.
I personally hold the opinion that this lack of trust of one's own personal opinions was also developed by a group of academics, starting with Dr. Lipshitz, and going on through ABX testing by BAS, and later by Dr. Toole and others, and books have been written about it, by them and many others as to how YOU too can be fooled by your own perceptions, so you shouldn't trust them. In audio, this has created this debate about whether experience and aptitude can be trusted, even if it appears to be successful in the world marketplace and opinion.
I think that this too shall pass, at least enough to remove the absurdities of not trusting yourself to make a serious decision between audio components and the often stated conclusion that everything essentially sounds the same.
Unfortunately, I do take an 'authoritarian' stance, often because I am a recognized authority on audio electronic design. I am certainly NOT the only authority on this, but I have earned that rating. However, my imperfect social skills sometimes paint me into a corner, where people will go after me on matters large and small, just to bring me down a peg.
The real problem here is a matter of 'belief'. This happens often in the history of science and psychology. Any study of the history of science will show where a dominant belief system AT THE TIME, virtually overwhelms any dissent, yet it will not last forever.
For example, Freudian Psychology, and its rigid practice of psychotherapy. When I was much younger I had 5 years of it. Boy, were they rigid! And opinionated too! While, I learned much about my self, in spite of the conditions and beliefs imposed on me, the use of a simple 'E-meter' would have facilitated getting to the 'root' of important problems much, much faster. Today, the idea of lying on a couch and telling an all knowing analyst about your 'mother' for example is almost laughable, YET it was everything, just a couple of generations ago.
I personally hold the opinion that this lack of trust of one's own personal opinions was also developed by a group of academics, starting with Dr. Lipshitz, and going on through ABX testing by BAS, and later by Dr. Toole and others, and books have been written about it, by them and many others as to how YOU too can be fooled by your own perceptions, so you shouldn't trust them. In audio, this has created this debate about whether experience and aptitude can be trusted, even if it appears to be successful in the world marketplace and opinion.
I think that this too shall pass, at least enough to remove the absurdities of not trusting yourself to make a serious decision between audio components and the often stated conclusion that everything essentially sounds the same.
p.s. let me head this one off at the pass, no; I do not eat fast food...from anywhere!
You wouldn't say that about the food carts outside Hamamatsuchō.
Download any recent issue of Elecktor and there are numerous listings for services at any level. I use ExpressPCB $51 for three 1/2 eurosize boards. Good for student projects.
I find what the artists have to express on these issues is more interesting: the fundamentals of the craft, the potentially biasing influence of money, honesty and will in the face of one's unavoidably subjective experience.
"I May Be Wrong (But I Doubt It)"
"I May Be Wrong (But I Doubt It)"
Hi John,
Yes, I'm here! And did read you previous post to this one. I agree with you. I think the ear does a remarkable job at detecting very small differences. This I've learned from my own experience with extreme sound sensitivity.
Sure the ear can be fooled but that doesn't mean these differences don't exist. I don't understand the angst against those who trust there ears. And don't understand fight for lesser quality recording formats or equipment.
But, so it goes.
In a nutshell, I learned when I'm influenced by the placebo effect and when not. Thus I leaned when I can fully and truly trust my hearing without any procedures like blind tests.
It sounds like a pure belief.
We are not laking here about rcomending to others, we are talking about choosing for oneself. However you didn't reply my question why you rely on reputation and technical specs when you trust your ears to perform listening tests, or why you perform listening tests if you don't trust your ears?
You see, you operate in many cases and to a very large degree out of pure beliefs, or unproved assumptions. Your assumption about the reason I second many things JC says is totally wrong. I second those things that JC says which I know to be true, out of my own experience.
There is no human being, dead or alive, which I accept blindly everything he may say, not even Moses, Jesus, Buddha or Shankara.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.