 
|
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 |
216.53.159.98
I'm going to attempt this debate from a different perspective and at the same time try to remove any previous feelings about past posts, I've either written or read.So if either Real JJ and/or Pat D would care to answer an honest question, honestly, instead of tearing the question itself apart, I'll attempt to ask a question that in my mind at least, keeps me from believing Objectivists claims that Subjectivists are imagining or fooling themselves when they claim to hear differences.
As a Subjectivist I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I've listened to music when a new audio component was introduced and yet hard as I tried I couldn't determine if I heard any differences to speak of. Yet insert a different component and I here differences!
So given that my biases, preferences and expectations are always with me, why is it that at these times they aren't causing me to imagine or fool myself into believing I hear differences, if that is, at other times they do cause me to imagine or fool myself into believing I hear differences, like Objectivists suggest?
Afterall nothing changed, it's the same room, same group of people with their same unique sets of biases, preferences and expectations, same unmatched spl levels, etc. yet one component I hear differences and another I don't know if I hear differences.
Please explain why my biases, preferences and expectations don't always cause to imagine or believe I hear differences....
Thetubeguy1954
Follow Ups:
I think I understand what you are saying. My experience is similar. However, my approach is not to listen for a difference when trying a new component. Rather, I listen to determine if I like it better than what it would be replacing. Far more often than not, I didn't prefer the new item.But what about those times I did prefer the sound of a new item? Was I just imagining differences? Perhaps, but I don't think so. And even if I was imagining, would it really matter as long as I was pleased?
My personal experience contradicts much of what I read about audio gear, including magazine reviews and accounts of double-blind tests. I trust my experience.
I should have given more thought to this subject before posting. I think the problem is with my following statement: "Rather, I listen to determine if I like it better than what it would be replacing." The statement implies I start the process by comparing, for example, amps A(new) and amp B(old), in an attempt to detect a difference in their sounds. But that's not what I do initially(See my reply to Robert Hamel).The statement also implies my only reason for trying A would be to find an amp better than B. I should have explained I sometimes try new components just out of curiosty. And the statement implies unless they sound the same, I decide whether I prefer A or B, but that's not always the case. I may like both.
a
Okiemax, you said: However, my approach is not to listen for a difference when trying a new component. Rather, I listen to determine if I like it better than what it would be replacing. Far more often than not, I didn't prefer the new item.I'm in general agreement with what I believe you're saying, but I question wouldn't one need to determine if they heard a difference before they could decide if they like what they heard more than the component it would be replacing? I believe they would.
For me it's like this:
1) Replace an audio component.
2) Listen for any possible differences I can hear.
3) Decide if I like the differences I hear more than what I heard before. Afterall not all change is good.
====================================================================
Now you continue with: But what about those times I did prefer the sound of a new item? Was I just imagining differences? Perhaps, but I don't think so. And even if I was imagining, would it really matter as long as I was pleased?I agree with you. I don't believe I'm just imagining differences when I hear them! That's why I posed the question to Objectivists**. I cannot understand how my biases, preferences and expectations can cause me to imagine or fool myself into believing I hear differences in sound one time and then not hear differences the next time "IF" they actually cause me to imagine or fool myself into believing I hear differences in sound at other times! Why would this turn off and on? furthermore if it does turn off and on, it's an unreliable point, as one doesn't know if it's happening or not. I'm trying to keep an open mind on this matter.
=====================================================================
Finally Okiemax you said: My personal experience contradicts much of what I read about audio gear, including magazine reviews and accounts of double-blind tests. I trust my experience.I pretty much agree with this statement, but then we get back to are our biases, preferences and expectations causing us imagine or fool ourselves into believing we hear these differences? Hopefully if I and other can keep our egos out of this debate, we can rationally discuss these questions, even when we disagree. Only time will tell.
**For a complete understanding of the question I posed, please click on link provided below.Thetubeguy1954
Sorry, see my reply above.
Not trying to split hairs but isn't that listening for a difference?? You can say it's a preference but looking to see which you like better is a comparison. What you are listening for are differences so how can you say that's not your approach?? Isn't that just semantics??
True, it can't sound better unless it sounds different, and I would agree with you fully if the process were as follows: First, I'll determine whether the new one sounds different than the old one, and if it does, I then will decide which one I prefer. But that's not the process.First, I want to know whether I like listening to the new component. Do I like its sound using my favorite recordings. However, initial impressions may change. Does it grow on me or fade after a few days. After returning to listening to the old piece, do I miss the new one?
I may find I like both, one better on some recordings, the other on others.
Really.Overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, are all proababilistic in nature.
I realize, perhaps better than you know, just how much of a pain in the *&(*& this makes examining subjective results.
By the way, you need not assume any bias or expectation (preference is not an issue here, you get to prefer what you like), overdetection by itself suffices to create both an illusion of difference or none. One need not refer to any kind of bias, concious or otherwise, to invalidate a sighted test.
Ok Real JJ, I'll start by admitting I'm confused. IF I understand what you're saying the real problems are overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, are all proababilistic in nature and not my biases, preferences and expectations. Yet that's exactly opposite of what so many other Objectivists do claim. By that I mean other Objectivists say IT IS my biases, preferences and expectations that are causing me to imagine or fool myself into believing I hear differences! Hence part of my confusion.Let's leave the difference in opinions between Objectivists out of the issue for now. In order to try and keep this discussion rational egoless and hopefully educational, I'll ask these four questions....
FIRST: 1) Please define what "Overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, mean to you. (I ask this so we aren't disagreeing over meanings or definitions of words.)
SECOND: 2) Please explain how they are all proababilistic in nature. (I need to know how they are "all proababilistic in nature" to understand how they are effecting test results.)
THIRD: 3) Please explain "IF" they are all proababilistic in nature how one knows if they are occuring and hence effecting the test or not. (I need this answer to determine if overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc are always influencing test results.)
If the answer to #3 is if overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc aren't always influencing test results, then I ask:
FOURTH: 4) How are they reliable if one doesn't know whether or not they are influencing what's heard?
If the answer to #3 is if overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc are always influencing test results, then I ask:
FOURTH: 4) Why do they only sometimes cause me to be fooled into imagining I hear differences one time and not the next?
Thanks, Thetubeguy1954
Well, not in order, but...First, the human organism is always probabilistic. That does not mean it's completely random, but rather that there is always a random element.
Now, as to influencing one's self, it always happens. Yes, really. There are a lot of experiments that have been done to prove this. A summary is beyond this board, I think, but it's safe to say that we evolved to very effectively integrate the input from all of our senses, to the point that we do it. All the time, (assuming we're concious, that is) using all available sensory input.
I think that covers 3-4, and the second 4), well, since the response is probabilistic, and since you have memory, no more is required.
The basics of hearing appear to work like this. There are 3 levels of memory.
The first (highest information content, shortest lived) is loudness memory. This lasts circa 200 milliseconds. This can be thought of as having a megabit/second of information, give or take. At this level, detecting a change is probabilistic, suffers from overdetection, etc, more on that later.
This level of memory is just about completely involuntary, it is at the periphery and has very little concious or subconcious control.
The second level is feature memory, where you take the loudness memory and turn it into auditory features. This is a few-second duration memory. THIS CAN BE GUIDED BOTH CONCIOUSLY AND UNCONCIOUSLY, and has about 1000 bits/second capacity. What does this mean? It means that either conciously or UNconciously you can guide what you hear from the original. This means that even if you choose, conciously or not, to focus on a different part of the very same music, you WILL recall something different. Different information will be retained at this level. So right here, you can see how memory (long-term), intent, and subconcious behavior can result in different results for the SAME signal, even without overdetection happening. Now, assuming overdetection for the minute, it also means that you might not even have the same details available from loudness memory, and in fact such difference may drive your analysis that converts loudness to features. So here we see a second, unavoidable, way that differences in memory arise from no difference in the original signal.
Finally, features to auditory objects is the final stage. This is a reduction from 1kb/s give or take to a few bits/second, and gets stored in long-term memory. There is concious control over this (you choose to focus on a given instrument, whatever), subconcious control over this (you are predisposed to pick up percieved differenes) and probabilistic effects as well (does something detected differently get through the feature set to auditory objects?).
Hope this helped. The "evidence" for this is long-winded, and involves thousands of pages of reading in a few dozen texts and papers. You could start with Brian Moore's "Psychology of Hearing" that will get you somewhere. Referring to a talk by Elizebeth Cohen given at an AES a few years ago will get you a bit farther, and she put out a whole list of references, etc...
jj
Ok Real JJ, This... " The "evidence" for this is long-winded, and involves thousands of pages of reading in a few dozen texts and papers. You could start with Brian Moore's "Psychology of Hearing" that will get you somewhere. Referring to a talk by Elizebeth Cohen given at an AES a few years ago will get you a bit farther, and she put out a whole list of references, etc"...involves perhaps more information that I care to know.I don't want to be stupid mine you, but at the same time I don't want to need a BA in PsycoAcoustics to understand what they mean either. As I've stated before I could possibly be wrong. With Overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, you've presented an arguement I'm not even postive I really understand. So how do I argue against it? I want to enjoy my hobby, not need a BA to enjoy listening to music!
I just don't follow how I can either conciously or UNconciously guide what I hear from the original or how this means that even if I choose, conciously or not, to focus on a different part of the very same music, I WILL recall something different. If you don't mind my using (I say this in good humor) an Objectivist response, this isn't clear to me.
Nor is this clear to me, Finally, features to auditory objects is the final stage. This is a reduction from 1kb/s give or take to a few bits/second, and gets stored in long-term memory. There is concious control over this (you choose to focus on a given instrument, whatever), subconcious control over this (you are predisposed to pick up percieved differenes) and probabilistic effects as well (does something detected differently get through the feature set to auditory objects?). What the heck does that really mean? Can you reword it for the masses? I'm NOT being sarcastic, I'm TRYING to understand what you've just said.
Of course there's just probabilistic which I needed to look up the definition of.
Main Entry: prob·a·bi·lis·tic
Pronunciation: "prä-b&-b&-'lis-tik
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to probabilism
2 : of, relating to, or based on probabilitySeems like a lot of this is just based on the laws of probability! Which if I'm correct brings me back to a point I made a bit back. Whats the probability of 4 different individuals who are all unique, doing the exact same things in regards to overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, so that the are fooled into believing or imagining they hear the same differences at the same time? That seems very improbabile to me!
Thetubeguy1954
How to explain... Hmmm.Ok, the amount of information available at the loudness memory stage is a swimming pool full.
The feature extraction pulls some semi-conciously, semi-unconciously selected bits out of the swimming pool, analyzes it, and gives you a quart jar full of information.
The auditory object phase analyzes the quart of water, and comes up with a few drops of water that describes what you heard.
Now, the point is that at both steps, both concious (listen to the oboe) and unconcious (wtf was that click, or purely random choice) processes guide where you look in the swimming pool, and what parts of the quart you pay attention to.
As to how you guide, I'm reporting the phenominon as observed. I can't tell you how you do it, and I don't think anybody else can at this point.
As to the question about probability, if you're guided by somebody's perceptions to listen for a particular thing, you'r elikely to hear it.
No matter your intent. Humans are frighteningly good at incorporating all information into what seems like any sensory modality.
Real JJ, I have no problems admitting when I don't understand something so I appreciate your "dumbing down" the response so I could understand it better.I certainly don't want to remain ignorant on this topic, nor do I wish to have to obtain a degree to understand it, either!
When you say" "Ok, the amount of information available at the loudness memory stage is a swimming pool full.
The feature extraction pulls some semi-conciously, semi-unconciously selected bits out of the swimming pool, analyzes it, and gives you a quart jar full of information.
The auditory object phase analyzes the quart of water, and comes up with a few drops of water that describes what you heard.
What I (Thetubeguy1954) hear is, we have a swimming pool of data, the feature extraction gives one a quart jar full of information and the auditory object phase analyzes THAT quart and comes up with a few drops of water that describes what was heard.
I'm sorry Real JJ, I don't wish to incur your wrath, especially after you've taken so much time to try and explain your point-of-view, but I just cannot believe, that four unique individuals would be doing the exact same things in regards to overdetection, inadvertant self-influence, etc, so that they all would end up with the same few drops of water (out of a swimming pool full) that describes what was heard. That seems extremely improbabile to me!
At this point I'll post less and read more, but doubt I'll be changing my mind anytime soon.
Thanks, Thetubeguy1954
Some suggestion that you might notice 'x'. You MAY (notice, not "will" but may, I've met more than one "audiophile" who reacted contrarian as well) focus on what the other person said.The one thing that seems to be constant is that nobody seems to be able to completely ignore what people suggest. Some may go counter, some with, but "ignore" seems to be (*&*( hard for the human being.
(and I have a meeting in a few minutes...) Ping me if I forget to get back to you in a day or so.(the questions are not simple, so that's clear) I may have to work up some graphs to explain what "overdetection" is.
Ok Real JJ, I'll await your response. I agree the questions are difficult.Thetubeguy1954
All you have to do is insert the DUT several times and record your evaluations. If "probability" is guiding your reactions, you'll find some variance. If you're consistent, then that explanation can be tossed.Personally I find myself highly consistent regarding audio calls, whereas musical performances move me differently from time to time. Go figure.
clark
You also know sighted tests can not provide falsification.
v
Hello JJAs an experimentor how do you know if you have a valid data set or not?? Do you try to set-up the experiments to limit the effects?? How do you work your way through this??? Must make things difficult under the best of circumstances. I am assumimg the subject may not know if he/she is in overdetection mode for lack of a better way to say it.
However, overdetection, for instance, is probabilistic. Ergo, in an ABX or ABC/hr experiment this will come out clearly as random-looking responses from the subject, even given the subject's impressions that might be weak or very strong.The only way to tell anything in a subjective test is by analysis of the response.
Let's say we have an ABX test between two signals. Say we have, oh, 16 trials. If the subject is responding randomly (and overdetection is such a thing) then the results will fit a binomial distribution. Of course, for any given test you can only say with certainty x% that this was a response due to randomness, or that it was a response that shows that the subject is within y% of responding randomly. Hmm, that isn't so clear, is it?
There are two kinds of results that can happen that cause misinterpretation of the results.
The first is a probabilistic chance (which is always non-zero) that the subjects' response is due to randomness, even if say the subject gets all the answers right. In an abx, that happens one of every 2^n times, for n trials.
The second is the chance that the subject is responding with non-random, but still probabilistic, responses, i.e. p(success)> .5, less than 1. (which is the normal case), but that the results do not pass your criteria for detection.
All of these can ONLY be stated as "within x% of error". There is never, ever, any "certainty".
Of course, if you run 100 trials with a subject, and they get them all right, the chance of that performance happening by random chance is pretty blinkin' small.
But one thing you have to remember, say if I set a 5% confidence bound, is that if I run 20 subjects, 1 of them SHOULD fall inside the 5% bound, on the average, by purely random outcomes.
So one would re-run the positive respose under that scenario.
You're absolutely right that a subject has no idea if they are overdetecting, if they are responding to some expectation, or anything of that sort. Something I've had to explain over and over again is that NO MALICE IS REQUIRED. It's just how we work.
(nt)
What are you afraid of? That somebody might learn something?
That's exactly what he is afraid of. It's been his agenda all along.
d.b.
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
