 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.167.110.0
In Reply to: RE: Why blind listening tests are crucial posted by 3db on March 26, 2015 at 09:12:05
Long term listening tests reveal subtle sonic nuances that short term listening tests do not reveal.
For this reason, review publications like Stereophile are issued but once a month.
Follow Ups:
Reviewers have certain practical limitations with respect to time. With one's own system/recordings; however, we can take our sweet time. Over time (months, or even years), the sonic characteristics of certain recordings (as they are reproduced on one's particular system) become burned into your brain, so that if they are not reproduced as expected (as a result of a system change), it can be readily noticed. Especially in a blind test with 2 unfamiliar components, there can simply be too much new information to process at once in order to make fine judgements. If one can tell a difference in a blind test, then the difference is a large one. IMO, smaller differences can be ferreted out with long term listening.
The discussion seems to be centered a lot on the effect of expectation and non-sonic cues. What if one has no idea of what to expect? I think in that case, any definite differences detected are real. For me, a definite difference is one that is noted on practically any recording.
Of course, I have no data to back up any of this, but I know what I like when I hear it.
The result of our Stereo reproduction Process (performing & creating, then recording, producing, publishing, purchasing, installing, playing, amplifying, transducing, and listening) is inherently flawed. Incredible amounts of information are lost (or never existed) in the recording of a performance & Oodles (that's a technical term) of other stuff is added or distorted in time, phase Amplitude and frequency.Yet, when we sit down, relaxed, with a bit of anticipation, and drop that needle or hit the play button, our minds imagine that were are at an event in real time - with sometimes amazing amounts of reality. It is something you should not take for granted.
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius
Edits: 03/26/15
I don't mind that many of us hear changes in the playback when the actual signal doesn't change at all. This is because our minds have to have a certain level of confidence in the playback system in order to have the illusion to be believable. The threshold of that confidence varies - and sometimes wains over time. Heyser described that in his "Audio" articles on the "Catastrophe Effect". The multidimensional manifold of our perception and expectations is constantly changing.
I'm an easy sell, most the time my mind eagerly places me in the event as best it can. And even better after a glass of wine. My wife of 32 years, a musician, to her and my frustration many years ago - is the exact opposite. When listening to the finest stereo (and even my modest systems) with even the finest recordings I could find hears the playback and all the performance - yet her mind can't or doesn't place her in the illusion of a performance.
Interesting - if we play back a movie - surround sound and all, Like the McGurk effect, she will enjoy the artificial reality of the movie - even if it is a non-existent colony on Mars!
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius
"Long term listening tests reveal subtle sonic nuances that short term listening tests do not reveal."
What evidence is there of this outside of the claims of the listener?
JE
...there isn't much evidence that blind listening reveals subtle audible differences either.
When we talk "evidence" we are usually referring to scientific testing.
First the test must be validated for the use. DBTs were designed in the 1950s in England for testing the efficacy of new drugs.
In order for a double blind test to be valid, all variables except the single one being tested for must be controlled, there must a large group of people in the test and enough trials to reach a statistically significant confidence level in the results.
The way blind tests are used in audio they are more a test of the critical listening skills of the listener than for differences between components.
"...there isn't much evidence that blind listening reveals subtle audible differences either."
So there is no evidence that long term listening reveals subtle audible differences, and there isn't evidence that blind listening reveals subtle audible differences. Maybe the evidence is telling us that these subtle audible differences don't exist outside the listener's imagination?
JE
...that's laughable.
How do you know the colors you see are what you think?
Believe what you want and listen however you like.
Just don't tell me me way is wrong unless you can prove it.
Requiring me to disprove your claim is fallacious reasoning. Declining to disprove nonsense in no way validates or proves the truth of the nonsense.
JE
...ok so you can't show I'm wrong.
Prove your way (whatever it is) is right.
What are you going on about? My original post in this thread was to ask genungo for evidence supporting his claim that "Long term listening tests reveal subtle sonic nuances that short term listening tests do not reveal." Whether I can not or choose not to disprove his claim has nothing at all to do with whether it is true or not. As the one making the claim, it's incumbent upon genungo to back it up.
Perhaps the attached link will make my position clearer to you.
I really have no idea what you are talking about when you say I can't show you're wrong and that I have to show I'm right or how the position explicated in the link below is somehow "Jaundiced reasoning."
JE
J.E., I was being a bit facetious in the above post and I admit that it is only my opinion that long term listening sometimes reveals hidden nuances that get passed over in short term listening sessions. I think it's what happens sometimes, for myself and for certain others too. It has not been proven to be true beyond all reasonable doubt, but it has not been unproven either.
I do think it's important that everyone is honest and open about what they *believe to be true*, though. Honesty and forthrightness is the beginning of scientific inquiry.
Hey, no worries! I don't take myself very seriously and you shouldn't either. Remember: the point of this hobby is to have fun!
JE
...I didn't realize I was dealing with a debate champ who has taken no position on the issue here.
Obviously you are right.
What evidence is there that God exists outside of the claims of billions of people and no small number of elves, fairies, and gnomes?
In other words, you've got no evidence to support your claim.
Are you seriously telling us that you not only hear, but listen to the claims of "no small number of elves, fairies, and gnomes?"
JE
Just sayin'...
You can't necessarily prove or disprove a lot of things, but that says little about what might actually be true or untrue. We are all limited in our ability to *know*.
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
