@ gpauk & DPH,
alignment of vocabulary is an important point, and we addressed it accordingly several times in the past (the last time in June in the Blowtorch thread), where for example the work done by Choisel & Wickelmaier for selecting and using listener panels and useful descriptors as well was mentioned.
Or to quote Bech/Zacharov:
But pointing to the importance of alignment/adjustment is imo a different thing than to mark some attributes as useless.
alignment of vocabulary is an important point, and we addressed it accordingly several times in the past (the last time in June in the Blowtorch thread), where for example the work done by Choisel & Wickelmaier for selecting and using listener panels and useful descriptors as well was mentioned.
Or to quote Bech/Zacharov:
(Soren Bech, Nick Zacharov. Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method and Application. Wiley & Sons 2006, page 45 .)
But pointing to the importance of alignment/adjustment is imo a different thing than to mark some attributes as useless.
It illustrates the point that there are usually a lot of external factors contributing to the overall experience of listeners and further that it is mainly impossible to control everything within a experiment or otoh that total control of the experimental conditions would lead to results that lack practical relevance because of the totally artificial environment.
And a few posts later.
Rejecting an argument ("proof" can't be defined without specifying an hypothesis) only to conveniently use it later is the best proof of circular logic. And when confronted with a rigorous approach, asking for "personal criteria", only to blame "personal criteria" a few posts later.
Plus that you were unable to produce the slightest authoritative reference (and having the nerve to ask what is that, although it was stated a few posts upstream) to an ABX test that uses "positive controls" as you define them, and unrelated to the hypothesis under test. No amount of verbosity or name dropping is going to change this situation.
And to ask what constitutes "exceptional claims" when examples were given in black and white again a few posts upstream, and in direct reply to you:
Obviously this discussion no longer makes any sense.
Thanks, Jakob (and apologies for earlier misspelling your name as Jacob), for the links. I'll give them a read.
Fair enough on calling me out for my "baby and the bathwater" dismissal; albeit I'm still no closer to what "groove and vibe" mean, especially within the confines of what Dan had to say.
Yeah, like the power of suggestion, confirmation bias or bling factor.
What do you mean impossible? When someone claims hearing difference between audio cables, DACs or amps while subjectively comparing in their own room, does the same comparison but level matched double blind in their own room, what control problem is there?
Recreated sound through electronics is artificial in and of itself. It's like a bird flying through air complaining that if it wasn't for this air drag, it would go faster, when in fact the air is the reason it can fly from the first place.
Not sure. I haven't looked at all the links but something might come up with a search like this: entrainment of musical groove - Google Search
Maybe this: (PDF) Rhythmic entrainment as a musical affect...
Found another one maybe I like better: Syncopation, Body-Movement and Pleasure in Groove Music
Last edited:
IDGAF about what Descartes and Locke did centuries ago.
Everything is fine as long as you don't take all of this seriously as opinions are like ********, everybody has one. LMAO....but everyone should have the right to voice there opinion no matter how absurd it may be....If you cant handle opinions you shouldn't be on any sight that allows it and just remain alone in your safe place where no one can offend you. LOL
BTW I am LMAO to my self because it does NOT bother me at all but it probably does bother you. SMDH
Last edited:
Of course you miss the whole point of controls - ABX testing is only concerned with one type of 'proof' - ensuring that false positives are eliminated - it has absolutely no concern with ensuring there are no false negatives.
Hence known differences that should normally be audible can easily be missed
What you don't understand is that ABX does NOT have controls within the test for false negatives so the test has unknown sensitivity.
Asking to be shown a ABX test that has such controls is asking for what we are saying is glaringly missing from ABX tests
I'll call and raise on that one. "Known differences" is that a belief or a mindset that might be changed?
It has been pointed out many times already that there is far more to auditory perception than this simplistic view & many factors need controlling - it is impossible to control all factors
The use of internal controls is one way to get a handle on how sensitive the test/tster was i.e. this is a post-test analysis of results & may mean certain results should be ignored - those that don't recognize the audible differences in the control trials.
Oh dear!!
This is long but a fun read, science at its best and worst.
What Caused the Dinosaur Extinction? - The Atlantic
What Caused the Dinosaur Extinction? - The Atlantic
I know, but he's Dave's favourite
A lot of good info from him, but he is not amoung the favourites.
dave
You never ask about control when someone makes claim about audible difference between audio cables, DACs or amps after subjective casual comparison, right?
You missed the point. The example I wrote is about the variance between subjective casual audio comparison and level matched audio DBT in one's own room. Only variance is level matching and not peeking at the component during test. The rest is equal.
Flip back a few pages and look up pre game warm up I posted.
You should get yourself experienced in actual audio DBT. Then your questions and doubts will be cleared.
Are both of you for real? There are known audible differences that can be introduced into one sample - a volume difference, for instance. For god's sake, have you guys ever really done anything with audio testing or even thought about it anything that is posted? Are you too keen to get your retort in to stop & think for even a minute?
I mean this is getting really tiresome & uneeded.
Do you read my posts? I said it many times before - casual, sighted listening does not purport to be anything more than anecdotal but you guys want us to take ABX as a higher standard than this - "a gold standard", yadda, yadda
Pity you can't face up to the requirements needed for such "gold standard" claims
And this is where you show that you have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about ABX test? How many trials which are correct will you accept as 'proof' that an audible difference exists?
"pre game warm up" has a name - has a recognized term in blind testing literature - it's called training & pre-testing. Certain people will be excused from the test based on this training & pre-testing That's only one factor that is recommended practice for blind testing.
And I said "The use of internal controls is one way to get a handle on how sensitive the test/tester was i.e. this is a post-test analysis of results & may mean certain results should be ignored - those that don't recognize the audible differences in the control trials."
Just because someone passes pre-testing doesn't mean they are then focused during the many trials that make up the test.
Rather than telling me to "get yourself experienced in actual audio DBT." you need to find out what a valid DBT entails instead of the half-baked notions you clearly suffer from !!
Yes, it's not known as audible until a threshold is established. Please provide a reference to any studies.
You don't seem to be able to follow this:
- a control is a trial that has either A or B adjusted by a factor which is known to be audible (according to the established & accepted thresholds of audibility) - it may be a vol difference, a particular distortion difference or whatever.
As I said this is well known in blind testing & answering these same questions over & over is tiresome. Take some time out to think about this rather than rush to reply
Last edited:
OK so we stick with the usual 1dB, just curious. If you make this too hard we won't all get to play.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.