terry_j, i´m really sorry, but as this a more general thread a lot of my posts is related to science/testing in general. I think it would be better to open a new thread on the TG/SY test topic to avoid any mixup.
The flaws in the proposed test method are
1.) a small number of trials. This small number is (due to statistical reasons) quite unfair, unless the detection ability (under blind test conditions) of the listener is really high.
2.) the test protocol suffers from the "detection of sameness problem"
3.) SY being present during the listening might lead to unconscious influence
You might ask, how to know about the listeners ability if we just want to test it.
Difficult task indeed, but there is no easy way out. If you want to use a small number of trials you have to ensure that the listeners ability is high.
(Unless you like to be unfair)
The other option would be to raise the number of trials but as well above of hundred trials would be needed, that introduces additional problems.
So, you have to be creative; an obvious answer would be to use small differences (hard to detect, but otherwise already known to be audible under blind test conditions) to get an impression of the listeners ability under blind test conditions.
As stated before, if TG does training under the specific blind test conditions, i´d assume that he is able to learn to deal with the problems or otherwise to notice that the test protocol doesn´t fit his demands.
A really simple solution for point 2.) would be to use a "paired preference test" with randomized order in each trial .
Wishes
Last edited:
Wow, maybe you sometimes should really read his articles.
If someone writes a paper "Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of Listening Tests" in a journal you get just that.
Yes, raising the number of trials could lead to listener fatigue if you don´t provide countermeasures against it.
But, you only can use a small number of trials if the detection probability is really high, while otherwise the test would be highly unfair.
Wishes
I provided you with the required direct citation where Shanefield insisted that Johnsen should do _single_ blind tests.
After looking up the definitions of single blind and double blind, you should admit that you was wrong on that point.
You don´t like to admit that?
Please provide a direct citation of my post where i wanted a negative to be proven; no interpretation please.
I doubt that you will find one post, but i´d be more than happy to correct, as it is surely not my intent. ( Of course you know that, and that raises the question what your moves in this discussion should be good for)
Wishes
Last edited:
testing 1 2 3
I don't believe I'd be the only one to read that your statements of "not hearing a difference", that is, the null hypothesis, no change, status quo, nada, nothing to detect, zippo, somehow represent a claim that needs to be "proven"... and appear pedantic at least, if not outright argumentative, rather than a failure to prove the alternative in a correctly constructed test, notwithstanding your objections to the contrary...
Maybe it's a translation thing
I provided you with the required direct citation where Shanefield insisted that Johnsen should do _single_ blind tests.
After looking up the definitions of single blind and double blind, you should admit that you was wrong on that point.
You don´t like to admit that?
Please provide a direct citation of my post where i wanted a negative to be proven; no interpretation please.
I doubt that you will find one post, but i´d be more than happy to correct, as it is surely not my intent. ( Of course you know that, and that raises the question what your moves in this discussion should be good for)
Wishes
I don't believe I'd be the only one to read that your statements of "not hearing a difference", that is, the null hypothesis, no change, status quo, nada, nothing to detect, zippo, somehow represent a claim that needs to be "proven"... and appear pedantic at least, if not outright argumentative, rather than a failure to prove the alternative in a correctly constructed test, notwithstanding your objections to the contrary...
Maybe it's a translation thing
I don't believe I'd be the only one to read that your statements of "not hearing a difference", that is, the null hypothesis, no change, status quo, nada, nothing to detect, zippo, somehow represent a claim that needs to be "proven"... and appear pedantic at least, if not outright argumentative, rather than a failure to prove the alternative in a correctly constructed test, notwithstanding your objections to the contrary...
Maybe it's a translation thing
The following quote is from an answer to janneman´s question, and should make it clear:
"Of course you are right, it might be, that absolute polarity is inaudible and furthermore it might be, that guy no.2 is not able to detect the difference in absolute polarity, but at least that his bias will be taken out of the game is absolutely mandatory.
And, normally with positive controls it should be ensured, that he is a decent listener."
I simply can´t add to every post the whole bunch of perequisites, so have to rely on that most participants in this thread might have read some of my other posts. Normally i´d have suspected that these readers couldn´t draw the conclusion that i really want a negative to be proven.
Wishes
I was never convinced by that argument, our auditory systems appear to be pretty good at synthesizing the data into a positional change. Where it does constantly come into play for me is imaging/sounstaging, especially with wide dispersion direct forward radiators. My neck never got so much exercise as it did from temporarily storing my coaxial Tannoys for Paradigm Atoms. The constant head bobbing would make Susan Powter proud.
I would mark it as a possible factor, as it is a measureable and therefore a real effect, unlike ..... .
It is always tempting to find just one reason for some happening, but in my experience life is more complicated, and multiple factors are required to properly explain or understand some things. Maybe the "critical/analytical" mode of listening makes normally disregarded factors audible.
Hello Terry! It's good to be back. Yes I'd say you did come across a bit 'narky' but, the apology is accepted!
Well Terry hopefully now everyone understands why my health dictates that I usually only post on one audio forum at a time. The main reason I post on different audio forums is because I've found that people on different forums, whether they're subjectively or objectively oriented tend to believe & present their POVs on a topic from different perspectives. Thus by visiting different forums I get to see my "opponet's" arguement presented from more perspectives. Which in turn gives me a more complete understanding of how my "opponents" actually view the issue.
Ha! Then out of curiosity I just browsed a little more there...man you are an old hand over there!!
As I said before you're apology is accepted.
Thanks! I believe you're refering to Mark M. from the Space Coast Audio Society. To be honest I don't remember what he played that day. Mark M. has a great ear. He's one of the people I use to verify what I believe I'm hearing. For Example: After about 5 weeks I believe I finally have a handle on the sonic differences between my old solid state Stibbert CDP ---{which Mark bought}--- and my new tubed Stibbert CDP.
Mark should be coming over within the next couple of weeks and when he does I'll ask him to tell me what differences he hears between the old & new CDP to see how his opinion compares to my own. Of course in the end I go by what I hear but, it's nice to have that subjective opinion verified by others on occasion. Now I don't know if Mark's ability to discern sonic differences is better than mine but, he's definitely better able to put what those differences are into words!
He's also is very susceptible to listener fatgue with digital sources. He gets headaches and thus either leaves the room or asks that the digital source be shut off. Mark told me listening at my home was one of the very, very few places (1 of 3 I believe) where he could actually sit & enjoy listening to not only an entire CD but, even more than one CD! So it's nice to get a compliment from him on your system's sound, especially if your system uses a digital source like mine does.
MY speakers are an open source design called Sachiko. The plans are on the Frugal Horn website and can be seen here: http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/FH/download/Sachiko-map-1v01-220309.pdf My system which consists of a Mastersound Reference 845 integrated amp, GoldeNote Stibbert CDP, Sachiko speakers can be seen in this photo:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The wires are Stealth Audio Sakra ICs, M-21-Super power cords & Mike Rispoli Gen VII speaker wires.The Sachiko speakers were finished in Rosewood veneer & custom built for me by CarderSound of New Jersey. They're different from other "stock" Sachikos in that I've substituted the usual Fostex FE206E with the sold out very, limited edition version FE206ES-R, which in turn differs from the FE206E in that the motor is considerably larger & the suspension is clothe accordian. Having a stronger motor and a cast chassis allows the the FE206ES-R to deliver more nuance to the music that the already very good FE206E did! In addition to that my FE206ES-R drivers were treated with Mike Rispoli's proprietary, 5-step process. That's why the drivers are now black instead of white. Finally the internal wires are special copper wire from NASA.
There's no stablizing for me. The condition is a degenerative one and they all tend to feed of each other. Eventually it will be a wheelchair but, for now if I'm careful, take my meds & wear my back brace when leaving home. I can function fairly well.
Well Terry I have VERY comfortable couch in my audio room. It's sitting up straight, with most of the weight on my lower back that really hurts me. Sitting on a hrad chair only makes matters worse. So when I'm getting ready to listen longterm I sit with my butt a good ways out from the back of the couch. Then I put a few of the pillows that came with the couch as so, 1 behind my back and one under each arm. That way when I put my feet up on the ottoman it's like I'm sitting in an extremely soft recliner!
In in the process of picking 1 or 2 songs now. When listening purposefully for the point of proving I hear differences in wires I "try" to listn for very distinct things on a song.
This is a great question Terry. Personally I believe listening to prove you hear differences in wires to the oppenents of wires being audibly different & listening for the sheer enjoyment of listening music are two completely different things that should be done two completely different ways!
When I listen to prove I hear differences in wires I often listen for specific things i.e., the sound of two drum sticks being struck together, the decay of a cymbal's strike or piano's note fading into silence are often good for this purpose. That said if the wires are more similar sounding than different it may require longer listening for more subtle differences.
However if & when I'm either making a purchase or considering making one, I want to listen longterm for up to a month. I do this to see if listener fatgue sets in more quickly on a daily basis or not. Hopefully this has answered your questions in sufficient detail. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask them.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, if NASA have read this thread, I guess they would have used normal lampcord.
So he's bringing over the old player and hooking it back up into your system?
Tom, out of curiosity, why would you use two (totally??) different wires, in series, between the amp and fullrange driver? Or are the wires identical in construction, but made by different manufacturers?
Boy AJ do I ever sense a baited question there! As our aural memory is quite short or at least that's the accepted belief, yes!!! Obviously to compare one CDP against another they should both be present. So hopefully Mark is bringing the old, solid state, Stibbert with him to compare directly against the new, tubed, Stibbert.
However even if Mark forgets the CDP, I can use his opinion as a means to verify and see if others are hearing the same changes I'm hearing. So if Mark brings his Etta James CD again and Mark says he now notices the bass is a lot deeper and tighter than ever before when he's played this CD on my system, then as only the CDP has changed, it would make sense to attribute that change to the CDP, no?
Basically because I have to. I don't have enough of the NASA copper wire to make a set of speaker wires out of it ---{I really wish I did}--- and as nice sounding as Mike Rispoli's speaker wire is, it's too large to run as internal speaker wires. Maybe I can eventually talk my friend Paul B. out of enough NASA wire to make speaker wires, who knows? The NASA wire is very thin copper so I wouldn't even know how many individual strands I'd need to run for the POS and NEG legs in the first place. Actually I've been wanting to experiment on adding additional runs internally to see if the sound changes and if so, how?
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nasa copper? If you want the finest copper quality you`ve got to buy it from up here in Scandinavia. Try a search on Nexans.
And again; if you want optimal comunication between amp & speakers you`ll need thick solid wiring, and keep them short as possible.
Btw; they`ll open up after a short burn-in.
And again; if you want optimal comunication between amp & speakers you`ll need thick solid wiring, and keep them short as possible.
Btw; they`ll open up after a short burn-in.
Wire??
NASA wire? What sort of NASA wire?? They use all kinds. I've done alot of work for/with NASA. If there is "special" wire it's for a "special" reason. For example, Be-Cu is used where precipitation hardening provides a rugged machinable material for spring contacts, etc., when subsequently Ni-Au electroplated. Phosphor-bronze is used for Schottky diode contact whiskers (Au plated of course) so that the required contact pressure can be maintained for the device characteristic. I could go on and on, but simply stating "NASA wire" is essentially meaningless, other than some sort of implication that it's "more special" than your average "zip cord" or "boutique" stereo ICs and somehow makes the sound "more special". I don't think that would be the case. It's still OFHC, ETP, Litz, etc... depending on the requirements..
Maybe its sound could be described as "out of this world" or "heavenly"...
John L.
NASA wire? What sort of NASA wire?? They use all kinds. I've done alot of work for/with NASA. If there is "special" wire it's for a "special" reason. For example, Be-Cu is used where precipitation hardening provides a rugged machinable material for spring contacts, etc., when subsequently Ni-Au electroplated. Phosphor-bronze is used for Schottky diode contact whiskers (Au plated of course) so that the required contact pressure can be maintained for the device characteristic. I could go on and on, but simply stating "NASA wire" is essentially meaningless, other than some sort of implication that it's "more special" than your average "zip cord" or "boutique" stereo ICs and somehow makes the sound "more special". I don't think that would be the case. It's still OFHC, ETP, Litz, etc... depending on the requirements..
Maybe its sound could be described as "out of this world" or "heavenly"...
John L.
Nope, no trick question Tom, just thought you had traded in the old player for the new (so much for my short term memory). Didn't realize a friend had it. Wondering how the comparison was to be made, as it could be similar to the wire swap, thus constitute a bit of practice for the real thing.
Now as far as short term (aural) memory, that's not a belief, it's what all the actual evidence points to. Not accepting (or evading) the evidence and instead accepting the stuff where there is no evidence...that would constitute a belief.
Will you hook them both to the Mastersound and then just switch between? That would seem the easiest and most practical (assuming you have copies of the intended discs).
Hmmm, why would that be? You should be able to run just about any size wire through the back of the BLH enclosure and to the driver. Did you supply the Carder guy the Nasa wire or install it yourself?
Right, but with two different wires in series, what do you ascribe to which?
cheers,
AJ
Auplater, do you think there might be an audible diff from using US grade 4 nines copper (typical transformer winding wire) and 0 nines commercial Chinese copper wire? Certainly a measurable difference in ohms per hundred feet and a consequential difference in Delta T in a wound coil. I have some trouble understanding what audible difference might be available.
Bud
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.