|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.205.10.55
In Reply to: RE: I appreciate your comments... posted by John Atkinson on August 02, 2014 at 06:21:49
...I've always found that some of what we hear as audiophiles in critical listening is processed subconsciously and we become aware of it later.
Another reason why short A/B comparisons tend to mask differences.
Follow Ups:
When judging whether one hears a tone or hears a difference, an objective decision is what we are after. When judging whether one speaker (or amp or....) is sounds better (more satisfying), a subjective decision incorporating multiple and inchoate parameters is called for.
Extended subconscious processing permits non-stimulus-related information to influence conscious perception and that would make the judgement less objective. Short interval A/B testing might force the subjects to "pre-conscious" and more objective assessment.
I've read--sorry, no citations and no time to look them up--that tests have shown that even these "deep brain," preconscious aspects of hearing are influenced by cultural--well, influences (i.e., influence of certain brands, like Coke). This has led me to conclude that hearing is intrinsically subjective, or, to put it another way, sometimes you really do hear differences you think you hear; it's not in the sound, but you hear it. Is this wrong?
Jim
All perceptions are subjective to some degree. Limiting the latency between stimulus and response serves to limit how much.
Of course, one could record from auditory afferent fibers or the auditory nuclei and, to a great degree, eliminate the subjectivity but that raises another issue: We need that to hear but we don't really "listen" with those. Cortical recordings might represent an objective measurement but it would be of subjectively-processed information.
So, it is a matter of refining the question before determining how we might answer it. If you want to find out what our auditory resolution (in any dimension) is, you want to eliminate subjectivity as much as possible. If you want to find out what we are hearing or how we are assessing what we hear, that subjectivity is an essential part and, perhaps, the major player.
...from what I've seen, short interval A/B testing with music, not tones, seems best suited to identify differences in gross frequency response, noise, distortion and loudness.Not much else.
With long term observational listening comparisons, all of the differences (and sometimes non-existent ones) can be identified, both objectively and then subjectively including things you are aware of subconsciously.
Edits: 08/03/14
the former is less likely to be influenced by memories and associations while, for the latter, those are essential.
...the first is more objective because if controlled and blind, it can remove some biases.But with music it's pretty worthless for identifying differences other than the ones mentioned.
Hmmm, except in the hi-rez recording trials John linked.
Edits: 08/04/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: