Thanks Scott, I would hate to miss something, BUT I read through the ISSCC session titles, and I could not find anything that I could really use. Unfortunately, they even charge an IEEE 'Life member' real money to attend anything at all.
I finally gave up on AES after 42 years as a member. Still, I will attend the SF convention this fall, as it is close by, and I always have friends there. Last time, I met a roadie for the GD, named 'Kid" when I worked with him years ago. Now he weighs about 300lb and has many 'kids' of his own. Saw him at the Meyersound booth. I also met up with Bruno, (great guy, very smart), and argued with John Eargle (now deceased) about the influence of Dr. Lipshitz on AES paper submission.
I finally gave up on AES after 42 years as a member. Still, I will attend the SF convention this fall, as it is close by, and I always have friends there. Last time, I met a roadie for the GD, named 'Kid" when I worked with him years ago. Now he weighs about 300lb and has many 'kids' of his own. Saw him at the Meyersound booth. I also met up with Bruno, (great guy, very smart), and argued with John Eargle (now deceased) about the influence of Dr. Lipshitz on AES paper submission.
scott wurcer said:
It is still hell of a lot more cheatproof than sighted tests (including A/B).
Just to make it clear - when I say "cheat" I don't mean deliberate (at least not always). Brain is a funny thing, we cheat ourselves all the time, often without knowing it. The most extreme example that I know is case of detached retina. In effect a person goes almost completely blind in a particular section of one eye. Yet, brain quickly "works around" the problem. You may be shortly aware that there is something funny with your vision and then everything seems back to normal. Until is too late and detached portion dies as there is no blood supply to it.
If you let you brain take extra clues, it will, whether you want it or not.
That is why is important to have audio tests where the only clues one can have are aural. Any extra clues will skew the result.
That is of course if one wants to be objective.
If you let you brain take extra clues, it will, whether you want it or not.
That is why is important to have audio tests where the only clues one can have are aural. Any extra clues will skew the result.
That is of course if one wants to be objective.
Can anyone provide evidence that listening in an analytical ABX setting engages the hemispheres of the brain in the same way that a listening session with no pressure to make analytical choices does?
Music appreciation is primarily a right brain function, whereas analytical thinking is primarily left brain activity. Would not placing emphasis on the analytical left brain in ABX testing by forcing the listener to make choices reduce the listeners ability to discern subtle musical differences by reducing the input from right brain?
AES make this Left/Right Brain distinction in an abstract for a 2005 conference session on Mastering:
Could it be that ABX testing is based on incorrect assumptions about how the auditory mechanisms of the brain operate?
Music appreciation is primarily a right brain function, whereas analytical thinking is primarily left brain activity. Would not placing emphasis on the analytical left brain in ABX testing by forcing the listener to make choices reduce the listeners ability to discern subtle musical differences by reducing the input from right brain?
AES make this Left/Right Brain distinction in an abstract for a 2005 conference session on Mastering:
Could it be that ABX testing is based on incorrect assumptions about how the auditory mechanisms of the brain operate?
As it seems that, in dbt tests, its impossible to detect any conclusive difference between amps that apparently ARE sounding different, one can only conclude that dbt tests are flawed in some way...it seems that the effort to control the brain also limits its function
Personally I would NEVER be influenced by the look or brand of any component...no way
But I have participated in a simple A/B dbt test between two CD players
Although they vere clearly sounding different, I had to conclude that although I could detect them it was very difficult...more than I expected
Oh yes, it was remarkable that in the dbt test my own CD didnt sound as good as I was used
I can only conclude that its quite easy to trick and confuse the brain
Personally I would NEVER be influenced by the look or brand of any component...no way
But I have participated in a simple A/B dbt test between two CD players
Although they vere clearly sounding different, I had to conclude that although I could detect them it was very difficult...more than I expected
Oh yes, it was remarkable that in the dbt test my own CD didnt sound as good as I was used
I can only conclude that its quite easy to trick and confuse the brain
Yes, I agree...it sounds very plausible
I will just like to ad that a skilled talented musician has a brain that works in third way...he/her have a brain that works in a rare and peculiar way...it is very active on the surface all over the brain, not just left or right
I will just like to ad that a skilled talented musician has a brain that works in third way...he/her have a brain that works in a rare and peculiar way...it is very active on the surface all over the brain, not just left or right
Seems that creative people are different too 😉
Question is...do we hear the same sound...do we appreciate different sound...is there any reference sound at all
Question is...do we hear the same sound...do we appreciate different sound...is there any reference sound at all
As for right brain, left brain, most of the composers I know (academically trained) complain that they have trouble turning off the analytic part of their response to music when listening.
Pan said:
So how do you detect when your brain is "having a play" ? Please do share !
Have you tried Michael Bach's page yet ? See how easily one of our most trustworthy senses (vision) can be fooled.
But if a machine caters for human aural pleasure, what is it to function for a frame of rule out of its target normal circumstance? I think that the ABX question is academic after all. Machines, their use, and evaluation, must cater for real life with all its uncertain parameters. Thats why tubes still matter.
john curl said:
Musicians are listeners too. Very keen sometimes (I know a few). Except they tend to concentrate on performance, not "sound".
In any case we might have come to the bottom of it, as far as I'm concerned.
It looks like there needs to be rather special conditions met for people to really hear sound of something as mundane as audio amplifier. Relaxed, sighted, long term listening session, with left part of the brain switched off.
Did I get that right ?
Nobody ever answered my question: why does ABX work so well for listeners to detect tiny level and EQ changes?
Or my other question: why can wine tasters detect subtle differences in blind tastings despite the hemispheres of their brains not being yada-yada the same way as having the wine with dinner?
Or my other question: why can wine tasters detect subtle differences in blind tastings despite the hemispheres of their brains not being yada-yada the same way as having the wine with dinner?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.