Let me ask you again, since you're dodging the question: what does the literature say about cognitive burden during preference testing and its effect on test results?
scholar.google.com is a good start.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joss.12045
Last edited:
You are missing the point. If you bring up a peer reviewed article showing that audio DBT done at the comfort of listener's own setting, their own pace and duration of their own desire causing them to not hear what they would have in subjective casual listening comparisons, then I'll look into it. If you bring up academia paper thinking that it's equal to the real world events, no thanks.
Okay, so you have no evidence and I'm supposed to take you at your word, when the people that *actually do* experimental design for preference testing have done a good amount of work to show the effects of different test protocols and their effective powering versus their theoretical powering.
Right.
Evidence of what?
Okay, so you have no evidence and I'm supposed to take you at your word, when the people that *actually do* experimental design for preference testing have done a good amount of work to show the effects of different test protocols and their effective powering versus their theoretical powering.
Right.
I thought DBT is for discerning the difference. When it's confirmed that there is a difference, then as an option, the preference can be decided. Obviously, one cannot pick audible preference when there is no audible difference to be heard between audio electronic components.
Let me ask you again, since you're dodging the question, DBT of audio gear in the comfort of listener's own setting, their own pace and duration of their own desire, does it cause detrimental stress that prohibits the listener from hearing difference that they would have in subjective casual listening comparisons?
You`re probing deep waters here.
My waste of bandwith: I think it matters first to you and only you. If you like it better this way, then what the hell`s the cost of others` opinions? You may run a blind test with an independent, non-audiophile 3rd party (wife`s ideal) exchanging the equipment in question in a random pattern and not exchanging it at all. Then you can gather opinions but they`re all subjective.
Measurements can never be enough in audio - I know of many ultra low distortion drivers that are used correctly and sound rubbish. But then the question comes - if the driver is very low distortion, its timbre would be closer to the original signal, so someone ****** up before the driver. Is it your crossover, amp, D/A converter, transport, recording tweaking (highly possible), quality of recording equipment (also very likely), performance of artist?
Audio is very subjective and in the diital era will get even more shittish, unfortunately.
Sure. And the same applies to the guys walking down the street near where I live who are holding conversations and occasionally screaming arguments with entities that no one else can see. It's a waste of time to tell them they don't hear who they are talking or yelling to, but it's also of zero relevance to anyone else in the world that they do hear that...
I'd need a unicorn to nod in acknowledgment.
RAP on hearing and measuring: "There are things you cannot hear that I can measure and there are things that you can hear that I cannot measure."
https://www.eeweb.com/featured-engineers/interview-with-bob-pease
Let's be entirely sure we're on the same page:
- Ben says that testing is mentally hard.
- You reject that idea outright and suggest it's an excuse that shills put out
- I point out that you haven't done your homework: there's a body of research into human preference testing that points out that preference/difference detection *is* mentally hard. I go ahead and cite some of it for you.
- You start flapping you arms and call the literature irrelevant. Then try to change the subject to a point not originally made.
So how about you show me the literature that says that Ben's original point was incorrect? No deflection.
Yes, if you are referring to audio as in live performance. As for electronic audio replay system, there are technical standards to follow if one wants high fidelity.
Which testing is that? Please be specific.
Which idea did I reject? Please be specific along with quote of my post.
Now you decided to sneak in the word "difference" after posting the following 2.
Moving the goal post noted.BTW, if human preference testing that points out that preference/difference detection is mentally hard in electronic audio comparisons, then that levels the playing field between audibility difference claims made from subjective casual listening comparisons and level matched DBT. What's the problem?
As I replied to you already, bring up literature relevant to the debate subject and I'll respond.
See my response above.
Taken literally I can't agree with that, Einstein himself stated that gravity waves (if they exist) would be to weak to measure. Charge is conserved even if one can not account for every electron.
As I said, that statement has no meaning without a context of time and place. Extrapolating it to I/we will never be able to measure it or more accurately be able to interpret measurements we already know how to take to explain what we hear is absurd.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.