Absolutely, that is part of the categorization process when transferring information to the long term storage. That´s why i was a bit surprised as DPH so easily dismissed Max Headroom´s "groove and vibes" as it typically would be as accompanying association/feeling contribute to better storage (at least there is quite high probability)
That´s an important point in the description, as i was sure that you of coursed realized the "vibrato property" of this particular snippet in any case but that you couldn´t remember the difference.
Maybe i am missing the point, but i´d still argue that being able to remember something means ultimately that you are being able to retrieve the information some time later. (Leaving aside the interesting question if retrieval often does mean that the stored information will be altered).
That it might be more difficult in certain cases to do it without rapid switching i´d not dispute.......
I explained what that is on post #275. Besides, you don't need to listen for long if you are trying to pick audible difference between components by using familiar music source. The long duration option is just that, an option to keep the complaints (of those who claim all sorts of audible differences between components but couldn't tell during level matched DBT) at bay.
Do you ever ask for "prolonged training incredible sensitivity" credential to those who claim the audible difference of expensive DAC, audio cables, amps...etc through casual subjective comparison?
Not altered but faded. Memory is better when fresher so why not rely on it instead of faded one?
Sorry, doesn’t compile. I fail to understand how (for example) an alleged sonic difference between two power cords can be associated in any way shape or form with the ability of the subjects to identify small level differences. This is to me simply apples and oranges. Not saying such “positive controls” would do any harm to a DBX but I don’t think they would help either.
By the same logic, a positive control in a drug trial DBX could be the ability to identify small odor changes in a sample perfume.
I would appreciate some authoritative references supporting this method of defining positive controls.
I did, and saw no answer to my question. Do you have one elsewhere?
You missed his use of 'your' when the meaning indicated 'you're' was correct.
only relatively recently it took a super computer to beat a chess master. With software optimised for that one task. And, here we are thinking we can determine things far more subtle and complex? HaHa Ha. Good luck.
I can detect change in 2 ways.... one is after i have become used to the sound of a system for a long time -- a change is immediately heard against what had become normalised. Over time that affect fades away as the 'new' sound becomes normalised.
The other is in short back and forth comparisons of many many switchings between two when subtle.
Exactly what the difference detected is.... is hard to describe in words. But many others will identify with you if they get similar/same result.
That is about as far as I need to know or go. Though the speculation and guesses and some bits and pieces of research are interesting and may have application. I have serious doubt that we will be able to think our way thru the brain's workings here. We many be able to copy it or clone it but understand is another thing.
THx-RNMarsh
I can detect change in 2 ways.... one is after i have become used to the sound of a system for a long time -- a change is immediately heard against what had become normalised. Over time that affect fades away as the 'new' sound becomes normalised.
The other is in short back and forth comparisons of many many switchings between two when subtle.
Exactly what the difference detected is.... is hard to describe in words. But many others will identify with you if they get similar/same result.
That is about as far as I need to know or go. Though the speculation and guesses and some bits and pieces of research are interesting and may have application. I have serious doubt that we will be able to think our way thru the brain's workings here. We many be able to copy it or clone it but understand is another thing.
THx-RNMarsh
Your korrekt
Yes, I agree & I still find it interesting to strive to connect the hints we have from auditory research with our experiences in this hobby.
The clue is in the word "perceptual" - there's more than one reason why something may not be perceived - perception is not a binary on/off sense. Perception is complex & operates on a continuum from very obvious to just at the threshold of perception & this isn't a steady-state continuum, it varies depending on attention, tiredness, cognitive load, etc. So when a test reveals that some difference isn't perceived it has to be ascertained whether it is really below the audible threshold or isn't perceived for some other reason. The use of controls helps to answer this question - if the control contains a difference which is known to be audible & this difference isn't recognized then it indicates some issue at play which is damping the subjects ability to differentiate known differences. How can such a subject/setup be then used for testing the audibility of other differences under test?
Let's give you an example - what if in doing an ABX test I simply pay no attention & hit A or B randomly (or I put a monkey at the A B keys)?
What would be the expected result of such a test? Statistically it would be a 50/50 split - 50 correct identification 50 wrong identification i.e 100% chance that you are guessing in other words a null result. This is an invalid attempt at a test - it tells us nothing about the of any possible perceived differences between A & B
This is exactly the same as someone who tried very hard to differentiate between A & B (maybe even took their time 😎) & the end result of the test was approx 50/50. Again 100% chance that you are guessing - in other words a null result. But this time it tells us that, despite best efforts, the subject failed to sonically differentiate between A & B
So we have two results exactly the same but very different significance. How do we differentiate the first test approach from the second?
A recognized way to do this is the use of positive controls - it's in the recommendations for such perceptual testing usually in the form of hidden controls. In other words, some number of trials containing hidden, known difference that the subject is expected to perceive & register. When the trial results are then checked it can be seen if these hidden controls were registered or not. If they were perceived, it signifies that the subject is paying attention & both he & the test setup are appropriate for revealing the differences known to be in the hidden controls. If they are not picked up by the subject, it is an indication that the opposite is the case. This would be one way of trying to tease out the two 50/50 results I gave as examples & allow one to evaluate if the test really has any significance.
But I exaggerated the examples to illustrate. What if the subject doesn't knowingly ignore the test & randomly hit A B keys for each trial. What if during the 16 trials of the test (this is the accepted min for statistical significance) he is tired, bored, thinking about something else, distracted from focusing on the A B difference. What if he drifts in & out of this attentive focus on differences during the 16 or more trials, focused for half of them & not for the other half - how will the results be effected by this? - half of them correct & half wrong? - does this mean that audible differences don't exist between A & B?
Controls are one attempt to try to get a handle on such questions - without them we are just swinging in the wind
Having a emotional response to something and being able to retain details about the circumstances don't seem so closely corellated.
Remembering the Details: Effects of Emotion
My methods also.
I would add that the new 'normalised' B sound is still judged on groove/vibe factors, and may or may not be preferred to A according to stored memory.
Reversion to A usually confirms B findings.
Doesn't matter what distortions/changes, it all represents information loss/masking.
Zero distortions/zero information loss is of course the 'unattainable' goal, the nature of emphasis's/maskings (distortions) dictates the signature of any item in the chain and contributes to the overall groove/feel/vibe experience, be it preferred/acceptable or in fact counter.
This is what is learned and remembered longer term.
Dan.
I believe the word that describes what is being talked about is, gestalt - the whole is more than the sum of the parts or to put it another way analyzing/defining the parts does not define the whole.
"I would add that the new 'normalised' B sound is still judged on groove/vibe factors, and may or may not be preferred to A according to stored memory.
Reversion to A usually confirms B findings."
I would also add that people who worship at the altar of measurements & certainty show their bewilderment & disdain for others who find a better sounding device than the cherished & loved existing device that they waxed lyrical about in the past. Their view is determined by their fixed & immovable mindset based on simple measurements - they simply can't bring themselves to understand the whole basis of auditory perception
"I would add that the new 'normalised' B sound is still judged on groove/vibe factors, and may or may not be preferred to A according to stored memory.
Reversion to A usually confirms B findings."
I would also add that people who worship at the altar of measurements & certainty show their bewilderment & disdain for others who find a better sounding device than the cherished & loved existing device that they waxed lyrical about in the past. Their view is determined by their fixed & immovable mindset based on simple measurements - they simply can't bring themselves to understand the whole basis of auditory perception
😀 No, it's when people say, this sounds better to me - if you disagree you are wrong, or can't hear it you are impaired, that a problem occurs.
If, subjectively, you prefer something - fine.
If, subjectively, you prefer something - fine.
I know, but i think it wasn´t meant in a technical way to enhance the storage of another part of the event but that the emotional response is triggered by one kind of reproduction while not by the other and so the emotional response will be stored as an additional categorical element connected to the other parts.
You are asking me to make you a better evaluator of such data. Sorry, that's outside of my jurisdiction. You will need to work on that on your own.
You've never participated in audio DBT, right?
Maybe to better understand this whole issue about the memory of how a device sounds we should try to understand how we can recall & have an order of preference for different performances of classical pieces - we don't remember every note in every piece - we build a gestalt about the performance. When we listen to a new performance we can find that it knocks our previous top preference.
This is no different than what happens with our playback systems evaluation.
This is no different than what happens with our playback systems evaluation.
Okay, how reliable is that emotional response, Jacob? There's too, too many uncontrolled confounding factors for it to be more than a fun little bit of metadata and a nice thing to say. I have had plenty of emotional experiences around music -- I couldn't tell you what I was listening on to save my life.
We're asking what sort of evidence we'd find appropriate? I want stuff that's rigorous by most conventional means, with importance placed on prospective design of analysis (and registration), and there's nothing in this space that looks remotely rigorous.
We're asking what sort of evidence we'd find appropriate? I want stuff that's rigorous by most conventional means, with importance placed on prospective design of analysis (and registration), and there's nothing in this space that looks remotely rigorous.
Last edited:
What are you talking about??
The division between "sounds better" & "preference" is not a line, it's a whole grey area!
First one must be able to hear the CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in the sound....after that its ones personal preference of whether or not the change in sound is to ones liking or not.
When you say "able to hear the CHANGE or DIFFERENCE in the sound" do you mean be able to point out something specific or is a general feeling, without specifics, OK?
Last edited:
Obviously not. Its quite OK to admit you in fact cannot show what you claimed.
Last edited:
I already pointed out to you where you can see those but it's a foreign language to you. It's up to you to learn to understand it.
I'll take that as a "no".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.