Or it is precisely what we would expect if we know that listeners do have a lot more difficulties under ABX conditions compared with other test protocols (or might be even under sighted conditions
)I have posted in other threads the publications about experiments where ABX and other protocols were compared wrt sensory differences and percentage of correct (poc) and wrt limit numbers.
It was shown and corrobated by replications that the poc in ABX tests was significantly lower than in other protocols like A/B and even 3AFC when testing the same sensory difference.
It was also reported (earliest reference dated from ~1952 that differences for pitch found "distinguishable" were constantly lower in A/B tests than in ABX tests.
Or you are using circular logic; it could be that it would be a lot easier to detct if only another test protocol were used.
Or, more to the point in that case another analysis method.
I don´t think so, but am more surprised that you seem to neglect a point that you´ve mentioned in the past, namely that a negative test result just means that something was "indistinguishable" in _that_ test.
To generalize test results (be it negative or positive) you have to show that the tests were objective, reliable and valid.
And if one really wants to generalize results to the underlying population and all conditions he should ensure that other requirements were met as well.
External validity comes into mind, sample size and the method of sampling.
"gorilla in our midst" demonstrates what's well known in perception studies & called "inattentional blindness - it is both a visual phenomena & an auditory phenomena & is related to the finite capacity of the working storage of our memory.
Again & again, people mistakenly believe that we are consciously aware of all the signals that arise in our hearing mechanism - we aren't. Auditory perception has a focus which is under conscious control but also directed by an unconscious mechanism so as we listen to the 3rd basoon in the orchestra, a sneeze close by in the audience pulls our attention to it - this is not under our control - however a sneeze from an audience member on the balcony doe not pull our attention.
We also split the sonic soundscape into foreground & background - the foreground being the main collection of sounds we are interested in & the background being the room ambiance, audience noise, etc. We seem to maintain a subconscious watching brief on this background of sound of which we are not consciously aware until some anomaly occurs in it.
It's all got to do with the problem of processing of signals which in themselves are insufficient to reach a definitive solution to the problem that perception has - that of trying to ma the physical world in a way that's of use to our biological organism.
If there was enough interest & it didn't turn contentious, I'm sure Jakob2 & I could try to outline our understanding of auditory perception in a new thread?
Again & again, people mistakenly believe that we are consciously aware of all the signals that arise in our hearing mechanism - we aren't. Auditory perception has a focus which is under conscious control but also directed by an unconscious mechanism so as we listen to the 3rd basoon in the orchestra, a sneeze close by in the audience pulls our attention to it - this is not under our control - however a sneeze from an audience member on the balcony doe not pull our attention.
We also split the sonic soundscape into foreground & background - the foreground being the main collection of sounds we are interested in & the background being the room ambiance, audience noise, etc. We seem to maintain a subconscious watching brief on this background of sound of which we are not consciously aware until some anomaly occurs in it.
It's all got to do with the problem of processing of signals which in themselves are insufficient to reach a definitive solution to the problem that perception has - that of trying to ma the physical world in a way that's of use to our biological organism.
If there was enough interest & it didn't turn contentious, I'm sure Jakob2 & I could try to outline our understanding of auditory perception in a new thread?
There are 439,000 members registers. However a number of those may never post. Of course when I said 'on here' I should have known I leaving myself open.
Looking at the 'numbers online' there are somewhere between 300 to 1000 online at any one time. Lazy back of envelope we can assume say 5000 regular posters. Of those 5000 we assume based on the comment from Geddes that 250 might have higher than average hearing (whatever that means).
At any one time 20 of those might be online. At this point we run into a problem as working out how many of those 20 might post on a thread guaranteed to flame on after a couple of days, or reignite something that's smouldering like the Centralia mine in Pennsylvania.
So it still feels like more people claim to be able to hear wires/capacitors etc that should be able to, but I can only pull a politician number out!
The way I view it is that there are
1. People with above average hearing
2. People with above average training
3. People who thing they are 1 or 2 and aren't
4. others
My BS flag gets raised over perception of things clearly below the noise floor of the room. If you listen at THX levels your peak is 105dBA, so an IMD 110dB down is -5dBA. There we are in extraordinary claims territory. I would however love to be wrong, but seen nothing to suggest I am.
Hi George, I must confess that my collection of Maria Callas recordings is not informed, merely grabbed off eBay secondhand. Until I read your link to divinarecords I never realised that there was such contention over how her voice was (and still is) represented in recordings.
It's her voice. Within minutes she takes me somewhere else, and somehow, the quality of the recordings (although important) doesn't really affect that most definite transcendental aspect of her voice. It's as if her very presence on stage possesses everyone, the orchestra, the audience, even the hall itself. Hearing her voice now, from around the time I was born, reminds me how recorded music then was a genuine matter of life and death to all those involved.
As an aside, I finally listened to Johnny Cash Live At San Quentin for the first time a few weeks ago. It is incredible. Anybody else but Cash would have been torn limb from limb. That I find a correlation between Cash and Callas is most certainly within the realms of credible thinking. They both came alive on stage.
I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about anymore, but I do feel increasingly that really excellent and passionately performed music of any kind or genre, will sound good on just about anything and everything sans audio.
In reading that Boyk paper I'm struck by this
In other words noise modulation as mentioned before & with the same subjective perception as mentioned by many - "affecting the perception of low level detail"
It's what I & others were interested in discussing when mutitone testing was the subject , I'm still wondering why this has not been measured even though " the total amount of this distortion is very small—much smaller than the lower-order distortion produced by the same amplifier without feedback"?
Also this
This only happens because auditory perception is based on a processing & analysis of the signals - in its analysis of the new sound it has grouped together these new distortions into a separate sound stream, separate to the sound objects that they were previously analysed to be associated to
In other words noise modulation as mentioned before & with the same subjective perception as mentioned by many - "affecting the perception of low level detail"
It's what I & others were interested in discussing when mutitone testing was the subject , I'm still wondering why this has not been measured even though " the total amount of this distortion is very small—much smaller than the lower-order distortion produced by the same amplifier without feedback"?
Also this
This only happens because auditory perception is based on a processing & analysis of the signals - in its analysis of the new sound it has grouped together these new distortions into a separate sound stream, separate to the sound objects that they were previously analysed to be associated to
Last edited:
She was a fighter. And she was myopic :
https://www.sfcv.org/article/the-enduring-legacy-of-maria-callas
"Callas was also extremely myopic. Her stare was extremely intense, because she literally could not see where she was going. When on more than one occasion she stared down a hostile audience and turned it around, she actually couldn’t see a thing; the triumph was achieved by sheer force of will."
The only thing for which Callas is to be blamed is that no one today remembers the name of Renata Tebaldi (and that’s a shame)
This is a rarely seen paper :
http://frankhamilton.org/mc/c5.pdf
George
I hope we can continue discussions without impeding each others position, as it is not going to change much, in any case.
I personally believe that for just musical recognition, I don't need much either, any more than I need a performance vehicle to drive to and from the grocery store. However, IF I want MORE interesting or accurate reproduction (or driver experience) then it becomes a real challenge. This is why I use two independent sound sources in the same living room. One for day to day, (like listening to NPR right now), and TV at night, and an another much larger and more expensive system for some FM, phono, and high quality SACD, etc playback. Most of the time, the small system is more than enough, and it has the convenience of remote control, that the 'reference' system does not, therefore it is what I use almost all the time. Of course, when push comes to shove, I might bring out my STAX headphone system that will beat both in clarity and revelation, but will probably give me a headache after 1/2 hour or so.
I only bring this out when I REALLY have to compare audio quality, such as what I had to do to compare the OPPO 105 headphone output to its standard output. Without the STAX, I would have heard little or any difference, at least at my age. Perhaps 40-50 years ago, I would have done better just with good loudspeakers, but that was long ago.
We audio designers are working to make an ideal product, within its constraints of price and convenience demanded. We usually try to do our best, without the cynicism that we are often accused of.
I personally believe that for just musical recognition, I don't need much either, any more than I need a performance vehicle to drive to and from the grocery store. However, IF I want MORE interesting or accurate reproduction (or driver experience) then it becomes a real challenge. This is why I use two independent sound sources in the same living room. One for day to day, (like listening to NPR right now), and TV at night, and an another much larger and more expensive system for some FM, phono, and high quality SACD, etc playback. Most of the time, the small system is more than enough, and it has the convenience of remote control, that the 'reference' system does not, therefore it is what I use almost all the time. Of course, when push comes to shove, I might bring out my STAX headphone system that will beat both in clarity and revelation, but will probably give me a headache after 1/2 hour or so.
I only bring this out when I REALLY have to compare audio quality, such as what I had to do to compare the OPPO 105 headphone output to its standard output. Without the STAX, I would have heard little or any difference, at least at my age. Perhaps 40-50 years ago, I would have done better just with good loudspeakers, but that was long ago.
We audio designers are working to make an ideal product, within its constraints of price and convenience demanded. We usually try to do our best, without the cynicism that we are often accused of.
40 kHz in the electronic audio chain is trivial to achieve. Microphones usually do not transfer such frequency without great attenuation. I would like for you to bring a proof that 40 kHz ultrasound is audible. I would like to see a scientific study on this. Otherwise I think you are making unsupported claims.
Yes, so I understand.
I'm putting together a compilation performance playlist for a hornspeaker concert (!) and briefly considered a song from Cash's San Quentin album. It simply did not work. Either on its own, or in placement with other songs by other artists. The San Quentin concert is of such visceral sonic power that any listening experience, other than from start to finish, is a waste - it's that good. And I'm not entirely sure watching the film would in any way increase my enjoyment of the music. It is not an album that can be listened to day after day, as it is more of an event. When I listen, I find myself straining to hear every nuance of Cash's thoughts amongst a unceasing cacophony from the rapturous prisoners, and the hornspeaker excels at that level of forensic listening.
In the meantime, I must do some reading about paper tape recording ........wow, I never knew.
How can we PROVE something like 40KHz response is MANDATORY? We can't, and don't have to, but John Meyer and I have been working with 40KHz response microphones for the last 45 years. Where have you been, PMA? Mark Levinson too, and George Quellet of Stellavox. Just check out B&K 1/2" microphones or their equivalent. Is that bandwidth totally necessary always? Of course not, only just IF you want the most accurate reproduction.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.