|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.251.236.4
In Reply to: RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... posted by josh358 on July 24, 2010 at 17:14:07
Why impractical? Other reviewers have done DBTs in the same situation in which they did their sighted listening evaluations.
In this circumstances, DBTs are a method of proof (loosely speaking) that audible differences exist, rather than a method of discovery. Why would one do a DBT if audible differences were not thought to exist?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Follow Ups:
But I don't think that proof of audible differences is required in most cases. Really, when you think about it, the number of components for which there are credible allegations that there are no audible differences is very small. Mostly fringe stuff, like dots. Maybe in some cases cables and power cords. In those cases, I think ABX tests might help prove that differences do exist, although their utility in proving that they don't is as far as I can tell pretty marginal.
Another use for ABX tests might be in determining just what is audible, as in the Clark amplifier tests. It would certainly be useful to know that the audible differences in amplifiers are due to impedance matching and power. I know that I'd love to see too if demonstrated audible differences in cables could be attributed to shielding and RLC, as I suspect, or whether it's oxygen free copper, dielectrics, etc. as some claim.
In addition to blind and ABX tests, I'd like to see tests like distortion listening. Compare what's at the output of an amp with a real world load with what's at the input. Record the difference. Try superimposing it on the original signal to see if it has an audible effect and see whether we can hear the distortion spectrum of a good amplifier with real world transducers.
"Why would one do a DBT if audible differences were not thought to exist?"
Here are two reasons:
1. It is possible to note differences in bind testing that are not consciously audible. The perception comes as a bias in the statistical distribution, so lots of samples will be needed.
2. When one does both blind and non blind tests one learns about one's own perceptions and mind. This is useful knowledge, even if purely personal.
Some of us are interested in direct knowledge. We don't want a bunch of priests or other "authorities" telling us what to believe, especially if they come bringing magic boxes or graphs.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Some of us are interested in direct knowledge. We don't want a bunch of priests or other "authorities" telling us what to believe, especially if they come bringing magic boxes or graphs."Along these lines I don't want middle aged + old men telling me what I can't hear because their mind and/or acuity is limited. I had one such encounter 16 years ago on my first job interview, just to witness 5 years later this "authority" has lesser perceptual ability himself.
Donald North
Edits: 07/26/10
You are quite correct in general, but I was thinking of more informal tests done by reviewers or even consumers who wished to do them.
"1. It is possible to note differences in bind testing that are not consciously audible. The perception comes as a bias in the statistical distribution, so lots of samples will be needed."
jj has pointed this out here, that one may not consciously be aware of a difference but the results may show that one actually can detect the difference.
I'm not sure how this would apply to tests by reviewers or consumers who wished to do blind tests, but it is quite relevant to research.
"2. When one does both blind and non blind tests one learns about one's own perceptions and mind. This is useful knowledge, even if purely personal."
I do wish more reviewers would learn about their limitations.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"one may not consciously be aware of a difference but the results may show that one actually can detect the difference.
I'm not sure how this would apply to tests by reviewers or consumers who wished to do blind tests, but it is quite relevant to research."
The significance of this is deep, because it shows that the relationship between consciousness and perception is complex. If one can "hear" things as proven by blind statistical tests that one can not "describe" consciously then one should not be too quick to dismiss the reverse possibility, that one can "describe" differences that one can not "prove" by blind statistical tests.
"What is dogma?
Dogma is an idea with a rigid boundary line, which won’t allow you to go beyond the periphery of that boundary line. Thus dogma goes against the fundamental spirit of the human mind. The human mind won’t tolerate anything rigid. It wants movement – not only movement, but accelerated movement. Humans want unbarred psychic progress, intellectual progress, without obstacles."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"The human mind won’t tolerate anything rigid. It wants movement – not only movement, but accelerated movement. Humans want unbarred psychic progress, intellectual progress, without obstacles."
"
Ahhh not all of them Tony, not all of them. ;-)
"Ahhh not all of them Tony, not all of them. ;-)"
The mind can be blocked by negative emotions. Fear will do it, for sure.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
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: