Hi,
I quite agree. Good work.
Also, note that instead of asking for an "ABX" identification, they ask for a graded assessment of the quality being investigated which gives a much better scope in later statistical evaluation.
There is no: "you must prove to me what you say you are hearing", but a relaxed "He listen to this and give it a score out of ten"...
In addition they give the full set of of their assumptions and other factors, which aids repeatability of the experiments.
Ciao T
I quite agree. Good work.
Also, note that instead of asking for an "ABX" identification, they ask for a graded assessment of the quality being investigated which gives a much better scope in later statistical evaluation.
There is no: "you must prove to me what you say you are hearing", but a relaxed "He listen to this and give it a score out of ten"...
In addition they give the full set of of their assumptions and other factors, which aids repeatability of the experiments.
Ciao T
"Now" is the operative word. Why is the trumpet more in focus now? What differences are there between before and now? Can these results be repeated? To advance the cause, these are the questions that need to be answered. This is where the sophistication enters the picture, because even a caveman could claim what is.
Sure it is. Maybe it's a physiological issue. Maybe the wife needs an excuse. Amend the question to, "I drank 2 beers and I have a splitting headache." Should a person hear that and conclude drinking 2 beers causes splitting headaches? That conclusion is the sophistication of the caveman.
If anyone wants to seek knowledge of perceived hearing difference the big hindrance is 'How to describe a perception in limited vocabulary'. If subjectivist can't describe their experience or explain hearing difference comparatively, only way would be an Objectivist try to understand perception of subjectivist in objective way. I think Indian Vedas "nyaysutras" have 4/5 principles to seek knowledge. Perception, Guessing, Comparing, drawing conclusion and putting in words. Not being an intelligent person nor a technical one I cannot grasp full understanding of this, but some of you can. So giving some links...
An Introduction
Perception in Nyaya Sutra
A Broad explanation of everything but things which may interests audio enthusiasts starts from Epistemology
Nyaya - New World Encyclopedia
Guess what ? philosophers had their share of debates (arguments
) amongst themelves too.
Perceptual Experience and Concepts in Classical Indian Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
(I guess not all that is mentioned is important only knowing how we perceive and how to describe is important)
Hope this helps.
Regards
An Introduction
Perception in Nyaya Sutra
A Broad explanation of everything but things which may interests audio enthusiasts starts from Epistemology
Nyaya - New World Encyclopedia
Guess what ? philosophers had their share of debates (arguments
) amongst themelves too.Perceptual Experience and Concepts in Classical Indian Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
(I guess not all that is mentioned is important only knowing how we perceive and how to describe is important)
Hope this helps.
Regards
Not quite, the "score out of ten" method was only used to verify their metric, actual testing used a simple two choice system, "which is more distorted?"
As for any study that used "you must prove to me what you say you are hearing" as a briefing, I would suspect an experiment in psychology, not acoustics.
OK, so if that's the sticking point, let's try the same question without that word. Is 'the trumpet is more in focus' a claim or not a claim?
But then that's something that can be verified. When a person has a headache they'll often (not always) have other symptoms - like stiffness in the neck that can be felt. If it continues perhaps the person has a brain tumour, which will show up on a brain scan. Yet the examples you gave earlier were all opinions. So you do not admit there's a difference between "Justin Beiber is the best male vocalist" and 'I have a headache' ? The first one is a claim in my understanding because 'best' means different things to different people, the second most certainly is not because everyone knows what a splitting headache is.
Here's a thought experiment for you. Can you imagine going to the doctor saying 'Doc, I have a splitting headache' and he retorts, 'I see, that's your claim is it?. People like you claim all kinds of things, come back when you have real evidence. Oh, and ask the next patient to come in would you?' ?
Here's one for you - When you go to the doctor saying 'Doc, I have a splitting headache' and they (he or she) will reply, "really? On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being very little pain and 5 being the worst pain you've ever experienced what is this pain like now? And where is it located? And when did it start? And have you had it before? And are you experiencing anything else ?"
In other words, the good Dr will not rely on just your claim - they will look for a sense of scale and for corroborating evidence to assist in a diagnosis ie to understand what is going on.
But they won't stop at your claim of a headache - they will test and validate that claim.
Which I'm happy to answer after you've answered mine. Can you imagine a doctor saying what I've just suggested? Would it be a reasonable attitude for a doctor to take in your view?
No. So whats your point in putting up the hypothetical?
Stow that - I think I get it ...
Last edited:
Both are claims, and both can be tested. For instance with Justin Beiber, you could do a statistical analysis against him with several other vocalists to see, say, if he is on pitch more than the others, or a listening test comparing just his vocals from the master tape with others singing the same song and assessing preference.
For a headache, perhaps the test would be a cognitive ability test, as we all suspect we don't perform as well with a headache as we do normally. Or a noise threshold test, anecdotally, people with headaches are less able to tolerate loud noise.
And I agree. So then is that doctor acting in accordance with the scientific method when he says 'Come back when you have evidence' ?
Because that hypothetical doctor is acting in the same way as sofaspud did when he said that anecdote was nothing. The resemblance is lost on you?
Hi,
Yes, I agree. You are familiar with Mr. Noisaine's work in this area?
Ciao T
As for any study that used "you must prove to me what you say you are hearing" as a briefing, I would suspect an experiment in psychology, not acoustics.
Yes, I agree. You are familiar with Mr. Noisaine's work in this area?
Ciao T
Would you not want to find out whether 'on pitch' had any corroboration with what listeners meant by 'best' in that phrase? Otherwise why not choose shoe size?
What is 'assessing preference' here? Taking a vote?
Vaguely, I've only ever seen anecdotal second hand reports, not the original data.
Indeed, that may well be a fascinating study- Do our perceptions of musical ability reflect physical attractiveness in particular relation to shoe size?
edit: pressed the wrong button...
Yup, with an experimentally controlled protocol. It's just another test. But if it agrees with other tests that use different metrics, then we might be one step closer to understanding the phenomenon.
A claim. And I guess I'm belatedly admitting that I'm presuming this is an audio discussion and not photography. The claim is in the masthead of the page. The forum rules are to uphold the claim. So I see this as not metaphysics, politics, or ethics, but epistemology. As Hiten pointed out.
A claim may either be true or false. Can a claim always be verified? No.
By themselves... no. They may either be true or false.
Umm... yeah. Think about what you just said...
"All snakes are dangerous" is more what I call misinformed or misguided, not strictly an opinion.
And the doctor will examine the patient and look for evidence of illness. Maybe, like Justin Beiber, it's a less than ideal example. I do get your point.
No sensible doctor would act that way, nor did I. For a headache, the patient might get a "take 2 and call me in the morning," but won't get a "bring me evidence." It's the doctors job to investigate the claim. And that's all I want to do.
Hi,
He likes to issue challenges, offering 100 Bucks if someone correctly "guesses".
One of his experiments in psychology was covered in Audio (when it was still published - this article may very well have contributed to it's demise).
He had set up two systems, both with an ancient DIY build Haffler DH-101 preamp that had had no service in the intervening decades, a pair of paradigm mini monitors chosen "because they measured flat" (not in his room - they most emphatically did not) some generic speaker cables (basically rat shack stuff) and a very cheap generic CD-Player (because it measured as well as any out there).
He used and the matching Haffler power amp plus generic cables in one system (the "normal one"), the other used a unidentified "high end tube amp" and "high end" Cables as the "tweaky" system. From the description no effort was made to optimise speaker positions etc.
The hapless ejits, oops, audiophiles who had exposed themselves to such abuse of course hear no statistically significant difference between the systems in the test, which was conducted ABX, with IIRC 5 trials and a .95 significant level (that means a total of 3 * 5 trials).
Anyway, the result was published as proof that "just as we have found that there no audible differences between CD-Players*, Amplifiers and Preamplifiers we now show that tweaks make no difference."
* The CD test was a real doozy, two CD-Players where passed through the AD converters of a consumer DAT Recorder "to level match them" and then played back through the DAT Machines DA Converter and sockingly and surprisingly for such an excellent, transparent and dilligent test setup (with IIRC 6 listeners and 5 trials each, .95 significance) no statistically significant difference was observed. Quel Dommage, imagine my dismay...
Well, this of course is another set of 2nd hand reports, the ABX pages that included the CD Player finally appear to have been taken down, my issue of Audio is long lost...
Ciao T
PS, Mr. Nousiane is a member of what I call the ABX Mafia. Their standards of testing usually are about to those he exhibited in the Audio Article, there is a massive printed publication equivalent of a Thread on a Web Board in stereophile's archives, also including prominently the ABX Mafia.
He likes to issue challenges, offering 100 Bucks if someone correctly "guesses".
One of his experiments in psychology was covered in Audio (when it was still published - this article may very well have contributed to it's demise).
He had set up two systems, both with an ancient DIY build Haffler DH-101 preamp that had had no service in the intervening decades, a pair of paradigm mini monitors chosen "because they measured flat" (not in his room - they most emphatically did not) some generic speaker cables (basically rat shack stuff) and a very cheap generic CD-Player (because it measured as well as any out there).
He used and the matching Haffler power amp plus generic cables in one system (the "normal one"), the other used a unidentified "high end tube amp" and "high end" Cables as the "tweaky" system. From the description no effort was made to optimise speaker positions etc.
The hapless ejits, oops, audiophiles who had exposed themselves to such abuse of course hear no statistically significant difference between the systems in the test, which was conducted ABX, with IIRC 5 trials and a .95 significant level (that means a total of 3 * 5 trials).
Anyway, the result was published as proof that "just as we have found that there no audible differences between CD-Players*, Amplifiers and Preamplifiers we now show that tweaks make no difference."
* The CD test was a real doozy, two CD-Players where passed through the AD converters of a consumer DAT Recorder "to level match them" and then played back through the DAT Machines DA Converter and sockingly and surprisingly for such an excellent, transparent and dilligent test setup (with IIRC 6 listeners and 5 trials each, .95 significance) no statistically significant difference was observed. Quel Dommage, imagine my dismay...
Well, this of course is another set of 2nd hand reports, the ABX pages that included the CD Player finally appear to have been taken down, my issue of Audio is long lost...
Ciao T
PS, Mr. Nousiane is a member of what I call the ABX Mafia. Their standards of testing usually are about to those he exhibited in the Audio Article, there is a massive printed publication equivalent of a Thread on a Web Board in stereophile's archives, also including prominently the ABX Mafia.
It is total nonsence that an ABX test needs lots of people.
You can perform a scientificaly valid ABX test alone, at home, in your own time, take as long as you need and take as many trials as you want. There´s plenty software around that lets you do it.
But it then only shows if you can hear a difference or not. And that is what matters of cause.
You can perform a scientificaly valid ABX test alone, at home, in your own time, take as long as you need and take as many trials as you want. There´s plenty software around that lets you do it.
But it then only shows if you can hear a difference or not. And that is what matters of cause.
My god,. I go to sleep and all this happens when I'm gone!!
This is what any sensible builder would do: use measurements to make sure the device is working, but use your ears to tell you how goos it sounds.
This is one of the things that got me embroiled in another thread elsewhere on this forum. In this case someone suggested that adding a particular device to a system had improved the sound in his system, and urged others to try it. He was jumped on by the measurement freaks who said that there was no way it could possibly work and ended up accusing him of lies, and worse. The proposer had no financial or emotional interest in the devices (still no financial but as the debate descended, he most likely has more emotional investment now) and was simply suggesting, "hey guys this makes a significant improvement, will someone else try it out?".
Now if that is the way this forum goes )and these tendancies have gotten much stronger over the last year or so) then very few will ever suggest any improvements. There will be no new shigaclone threads, no new CD63 mod threads, no new XXXX threads. It is unrealistic to ever expect ABX trials in DIYaudio. Most of this stuff is being worked on by individuals, late at night in their workshops, with only their own ears to give direction for where to go next. Getting a friend to come over and have a listen, or an informal comparison between 2 devices is as good as it gets - I use this myself all the time just avoid the "proud papa" syndrome also mentioned elsewhere on this thread.
Wise words and advice for any builder at any level of expertise. My own version is "listen to all with an open mind and then make up your own mind"
Fran
PS: compliments to the moderators.
This is what any sensible builder would do: use measurements to make sure the device is working, but use your ears to tell you how goos it sounds.
This is one of the things that got me embroiled in another thread elsewhere on this forum. In this case someone suggested that adding a particular device to a system had improved the sound in his system, and urged others to try it. He was jumped on by the measurement freaks who said that there was no way it could possibly work and ended up accusing him of lies, and worse. The proposer had no financial or emotional interest in the devices (still no financial but as the debate descended, he most likely has more emotional investment now) and was simply suggesting, "hey guys this makes a significant improvement, will someone else try it out?".
Now if that is the way this forum goes )and these tendancies have gotten much stronger over the last year or so) then very few will ever suggest any improvements. There will be no new shigaclone threads, no new CD63 mod threads, no new XXXX threads. It is unrealistic to ever expect ABX trials in DIYaudio. Most of this stuff is being worked on by individuals, late at night in their workshops, with only their own ears to give direction for where to go next. Getting a friend to come over and have a listen, or an informal comparison between 2 devices is as good as it gets - I use this myself all the time just avoid the "proud papa" syndrome also mentioned elsewhere on this thread.
Wise words and advice for any builder at any level of expertise. My own version is "listen to all with an open mind and then make up your own mind"
Fran
PS: compliments to the moderators.
What I was getting at & I'm presuming Fran was also, was the idea of the wisdom of the masses i.e that no one opinion is of much importance but when enough people agree, then it's likely that there is "something" in it - Wikipedia is no more inaccurate than Encyclopedia Britannica - the idea being that when enough people are involved there is a convergence which tends to be "correct" as determined by the "experts".
One of the reasons why I introduced the concept of the visual stimulus being negated as a factor in the equation - If ugly, would Justin Beiber still be rated so - I would contend that if it were the case, I would draw the conclusion that he would more than likely have a very good voice because the obvious bias had been taken out or even reversed. Look at Susan Boyle for example - sorry that should read listen to Susan Boyle
The snake example is skewed by the consideration that if I don't treat all snakes as dangerous & I get it wrong - it could kill me. This is a well known issue in patient advice about possible treatments i.e the statistical considerations are somewhat ignored when than the consequences of getting it wrong are severe.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.