|
|
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Of course. My test has nothing to do with the majority. My test is for the very few who claim they can reliably - and we usually get claims like "night and day" - hear the difference between two items; I used interconnects for my example. The test is designed to establish whether they can in reality hear the difference, or if their knowledge of what is connected overrides the audible cues. I(f they can really *hear* a difference, they will continue to do so even unsighted. My test goes out of its way to make sure they have every advantage that can be given to them in making their choice - apart of course from actually knowing what is connected. After you concluded your tests, did you ever do this? Advise the subjects of thier results, i.e., that they could not hear the sighted differences when tested blind. Retest the subjects sighted. Find out if the knowledge of the test results affected their sighted judgements. Didi the preeived differences reappear when sighted again, or not? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:59 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Of course. My test has nothing to do with the majority. My test is for the very few who claim they can reliably - and we usually get claims like "night and day" - hear the difference between two items; I used interconnects for my example. The test is designed to establish whether they can in reality hear the difference, or if their knowledge of what is connected overrides the audible cues. I(f they can really *hear* a difference, they will continue to do so even unsighted. My test goes out of its way to make sure they have every advantage that can be given to them in making their choice - apart of course from actually knowing what is connected. After you concluded your tests, did you ever do this? Advise the subjects of thier results, i.e., that they could not hear the sighted differences when tested blind. Retest the subjects sighted. Find out if the knowledge of the test results affected their sighted judgements. Didi the preeived differences reappear when sighted again, or not? If only I'd had the opportunity. Nobody has yet taken the test (rather a couple of people have, and predictably crashed and burned, but I was not involved). I suspect, though that the differences might well reappear - illusions are fun in that they work even when you have seen through them. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message .. . "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad? How can they be improved? The specific aspect that it is bad? Well, this: There are three possibilities for the preconceived bias state of the listener. 1) no bias Unlikely 2) bias that thngs will sound different Very attractive to the listener's ego. 3) bias that things will sound the same. Very ego-shattering. The test does not eliminate the third item. The only alternative is sighted tests, which do nothing to eliminate any kind of bias. I don't thnk think that it is possible that any test could eliminate that bias. The bias that all things will sound the same is largely a myth. Listeners who believe that they will be able to hear a difference are easy to find. If nothing else, you can use a sighted evaluation to bias people towards thinking that there *is* a difference. A test that asks the subject to discriminate differences, when the listener preconcieves that there are no differences, one can't force him to perceive something he believes does not exist. You can't force anybody to do anything without resorting to duress. However sighted evaluations are a great tool for reinforcing the idea that a difference exists. Note that every ABX test trial has a sighted evaluation built into it. You try to overcome this by forcing the respondent to answer A or B, but that presents another problem, that the unbiased, or biased towards a difference,test subject is not permitted to answer honestly, that he perceives no difference. Thats one way of spinning the fact that forcing people to make a choice encourages them to hear differences into a misapprehension. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:07:13 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad? How can they be improved? The specific aspect that it is bad? Well, this: There are three possibilities for the preconceived bias state of the listener. 1) no bias 2) bias that thngs will sound different 3) bias that things will sound the same. The test does not eliminate the third item. There is no possibility of the third term existing. This test has been designed specifically for subjects who claim to be able to hear the difference between items. There will thus always be bias number two present, which the test is designed to circumvent. For the first term - no bias - it is highly unlikely that such a person would be interested in stepping up to the test. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Clyde Slick" wrote in message .. . There are three possibilities for the preconceived bias state of the listener. 1) no bias Unlikely Probably not predominate, but fairly likely. Its comparable to religion. Both believers and atheists are vocal, agnostics are quiet, but they are there. 2) bias that thngs will sound different Very attractive to the listener's ego. 3) bias that things will sound the same. Very ego-shattering. Just as attractive to the listener's ego, if that's waht his bias is. I don't know why your biases should shatter your ego. The test does not eliminate the third item. The only alternative is sighted tests, which do nothing to eliminate any kind of bias. if one would begin by recognizing the need for 'test' at all. I would consider sighted lstenenig a comparison, not a test. I don't thnk think that it is possible that any test could eliminate that bias. The bias that all things will sound the same is largely a myth. Listeners who believe that they will be able to hear a difference are easy to find. If nothing else, you can use a sighted evaluation to bias people towards thinking that there *is* a difference. Its not a myth at all. Not unless subscription renewals to the hive are reaching an all time low. Undergoing a sighted evaluation won't 'steer' people to a bias that there is a difference. A test that asks the subject to discriminate differences, when the listener preconcieves that there are no differences, one can't force him to perceive something he believes does not exist. You can't force anybody to do anything without resorting to duress. However sighted evaluations are a great tool for reinforcing the idea that a difference exists. Note that every ABX test trial has a sighted evaluation built into it. Someolne who is preconceivd to hear no difference, will continue to hear no difference no matter what. The test results for those who hear no differences can contain three types of respondents. 1) those who cannot hear a difference that is there (that others can hear) because their hearing is not acute. (bad hearing) 2) those who cannot hear adifference because there is no difference that any others can hear either. (no audble difference for everyone) 3) those who cannnot hear a difference because they don't want to hear a difference (listener bias) You try to overcome this by forcing the respondent to answer A or B, but that presents another problem, that the unbiased, or biased towards a difference,test subject is not permitted to answer honestly, that he perceives no difference. Thats one way of spinning the fact that forcing people to make a choice encourages them to hear differences into a misapprehension. Well, you would be the first to admit that there are cases where one cannot hear a difference. Those instances canot be reported honestly. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:59 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Of course. My test has nothing to do with the majority. My test is for the very few who claim they can reliably - and we usually get claims like "night and day" - hear the difference between two items; I used interconnects for my example. The test is designed to establish whether they can in reality hear the difference, or if their knowledge of what is connected overrides the audible cues. I(f they can really *hear* a difference, they will continue to do so even unsighted. My test goes out of its way to make sure they have every advantage that can be given to them in making their choice - apart of course from actually knowing what is connected. After you concluded your tests, did you ever do this? Advise the subjects of thier results, i.e., that they could not hear the sighted differences when tested blind. Retest the subjects sighted. Find out if the knowledge of the test results affected their sighted judgements. Didi the preeived differences reappear when sighted again, or not? If only I'd had the opportunity. Nobody has yet taken the test (rather a couple of people have, and predictably crashed and burned, but I was not involved). I suspect, though that the differences might well reappear - illusions are fun in that they work even when you have seen through them. For different reasons, I agree with you, I think the differences would reappear (not that they are illusions). At any rate, even if they were illusions, I would still select the components that provided these "illusions', as long as they were preferable, and the price was right. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:57:49 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:59 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Of course. My test has nothing to do with the majority. My test is for the very few who claim they can reliably - and we usually get claims like "night and day" - hear the difference between two items; I used interconnects for my example. The test is designed to establish whether they can in reality hear the difference, or if their knowledge of what is connected overrides the audible cues. I(f they can really *hear* a difference, they will continue to do so even unsighted. My test goes out of its way to make sure they have every advantage that can be given to them in making their choice - apart of course from actually knowing what is connected. After you concluded your tests, did you ever do this? Advise the subjects of thier results, i.e., that they could not hear the sighted differences when tested blind. Retest the subjects sighted. Find out if the knowledge of the test results affected their sighted judgements. Didi the preeived differences reappear when sighted again, or not? If only I'd had the opportunity. Nobody has yet taken the test (rather a couple of people have, and predictably crashed and burned, but I was not involved). I suspect, though that the differences might well reappear - illusions are fun in that they work even when you have seen through them. For different reasons, I agree with you, I think the differences would reappear (not that they are illusions). At any rate, even if they were illusions, I would still select the components that provided these "illusions', as long as they were preferable, and the price was right. How could the differences appear and disappear if they are not illusory? The right price would, of course be no charge, since you get equally good sounding freebies with most kit. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: You sure resent something it if it don't serve you well. It didn't serve anybody - including me. I am sorry that it didn't served you. I was right first time. Sorry I wasted everybody's time by being goaded into a reply. Tell me what happen if the subject fail to detect subtle differences between his gear as compared to others during your test ? What did it proved? That any difference was too small to be audible. QED But isn't your experiment and test protocol suppose to help detect subtle differences ? Are you saying that your test would proved that this experiment will not help detect small differences ? You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several explanations I have given over the course of the thread. Where did the small differences go? How did the experiment prove it was never there? They disappeared along with the visual stimulus which produced them. They were there - they existed in the visual domain. Once that was removed, they disappeared as well. Are you stating that if audiophiles detect small difference in a sighted listening that this difference tend to disappear if they close their eyes, or if they decide to look the other way such as focusing on the wall ? Mr. Pearce, is this why you keep the components under test hidden from the view of the test subject in your propose Double Blind testing because in this case, the small differences will disappear in the absence of visual stimulus ? C'mon now. In a related scene, during my recent discussion with McKelvy [NYOB] about his own version of DBT, he recently said that: " Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus their *unaltered* perception on sound alone." http://tinyurl.com/d37rp SO, I ask him: What does the word "blind" in the context of DBT cognitively and visually requires to ensure that perception remain unchanged ? Unfotunately, after I ask him that, he completely disappeared from the scenery. Do you think you can help us out in this particular part ? Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:54:23 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote: They disappeared along with the visual stimulus which produced them. They were there - they existed in the visual domain. Once that was removed, they disappeared as well. Are you stating that if audiophiles detect small difference in a sighted listening that this difference tend to disappear if they close their eyes, or if they decide to look the other way such as focusing on the wall ? Are you trolling? You know perfectly well that this is not what is meant by sighted vs. unsighted. Mr. Pearce, is this why you keep the components under test hidden from the view of the test subject in your propose Double Blind testing because in this case, the small differences will disappear in the absence of visual stimulus ? C'mon now. OK - I've now had enough of you and your stupidity. No more replies. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk