Notice Of Sensory Science Journal Publication

unc2701

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I evaluated the statistical efficiency of my proposed protocol. I did not need to do a direct comparison between its statistical efficiency and that of the ABX protocol because the statistical inefficiency of the ABX (duo-trio balanced reference) protocol is well documented in textbooks and in the audio literature.

I see. From the abstract, it sounds as though the pilot was conducted on a single, minimally trained subject, no?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As I have said many times before, I do not believe that a test which mathematically converges to results similar to guesswork and which limits the amount of sensory information received by the listener is appropriate for sound stimuli.

Putting aside the petitio principii, that's really not what the phrase "mathematical convergence" means. The distribution of a series of ABX tests mathematically converges from the binomial to a Gauss via the central limit theorem. The example you give is really doesn't have anything to do with convergence.

DarqueKnight

unc2701 wrote: »

I see. From the abstract, it sounds as though the pilot was conducted on a single, minimally trained subject, no?

Yes. Multiple trials with a single, disinterested, minimally trained subject. The original version of the paper included three case studies with different subjects. I have even more documentation of more trials with up to ten subjects. However, the editorial board thought that there was some communicative power, and elegance, in the fact that a single, disinterested, minimally trained subject was able to quickly learn to discern sound stage differences through the application of descriptive analysis techniques. I was advised to delete the other two case studies.

If the editorial board had advised, "you need to do X amount of trials with X amount of subjects", I would have been happy to comply.

You should also be aware that I have been conducting my personal audio evaluations for many years using sound stage mapping and descriptive techniques. Many of those evaluations are published on this forum.

unc2701 wrote: »

Putting aside the petitio principii, that's really not what the phrase "mathematical convergence" means. The distribution of a series of ABX tests mathematically converges from the binomial to a Gauss via the central limit theorem. The example you give is really doesn't have anything to do with convergence.

I'm sure that you know a lot of exotic mathematical theory...as do I. However, for a "general audience" such as our audio forum, I think my use of the term "mathematical convergence" was appropriate. Thanks for the math tutorial and review.

WilliamM2

You were advised to remove some of the data? Sounds similar to the global warming studies.

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

You were advised to remove some of the data? Sounds similar to the global warming studies.

Twist.....twist....words on a screen so they mean what YOU want them to mean.

To me it sounds like rather than waste time and resources the "advisory board" wanted him to focus on something specific. Doesn't sound like any data was removed, just a different, more succinct path was taken.

Perhaps you should publish your own study picking up where the so called data was removed, so as to enlighten us as to what you feel is a glaring oversight. Of course you haven't even read the paper to make such a direct statement :rolleyes:

H9

reeltrouble1

cnh wrote: »

Unfortunately, Andre Breton you are not. But you do have your 'own' style.
cnh

Nor am I trying to be as there is nothing surreal about the post, since we are though seeing who might pressurize liquid the farthest while rattling past sabres, I hold several advanced degrees and like Raife and yourself have been published. You might enjoy my writings on the Destiny of a ****, a Club Polk gestalt of sorts.

Members have told me they rather enjoy deciphering the RT1 persona posts for there meaning and I am guilty of simply wanting folks to "think" about it, whatever the it may be, mostly about centers and their edges. Others just believe I am wacked, no matter, so long as they thought about it, which is why Tubes Rule.

Now the Rabbit Hole,,,,,,,well, a different story. In the meantime the Raife/Unc writings provide interest to the mundane of another sand amp question, albeit, looks as if he will once again prevail, but perhaps Unc is going somewhere different. In any event we must embrace everyone's path, lest they choose to sit troll like under the bridge of speech, for them the moderators barbeque calls.

RT1

WilliamM2

Of course you haven't even read the paper to make such a direct statement

Niether has anyone that's patting him on the back.

unc2701

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Niether has anyone that's patting him on the back.

However, one could say that "mathematical convergence" and "statistical efficiency" don't mean what he seems to think mean based on the statements made in this thread.

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Niether has anyone that's patting him on the back.

Fair enough............I guess we should all reserve comment until the paper is available for review.

I can see though, by the above post by UNC that's not going to happen. Why be rational when you can speculate and use semantics to skew something that hasn't even seen the light of day yet.

H9

unc2701

Look, here's the thing. I've got 17 peer-reviewed publications. 2 of them went to low-impact journals and are pretty much garbage; most the rest are in JACI, New England Journal of Medicine, EHP, AAAI, etc. To be quite honest, I kinda wish I didn't have those two crappy publications in with the rest.

So when he starts using phrases that have a very specific meaning in scientific literature that don't remotely mean the things he's saying, it doesn't look good. It's not just "semantics", and it might be an embarrassment for him on down the road.

So congrats on the publication- it can be a long painful process, but make sure that you really know what you're talking about and you want your name on this 10 years from now.

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

To me it sounds like rather than waste time and resources the "advisory board" wanted him to focus on something specific. Doesn't sound like any data was removed, just a different, more succinct path was taken.

You are correct.

madmax

The good thing about this publication is it explains a reasonable method to compare audio sounds. There really isn't any other reliable way to do it.

DarqueKnight

unc2701 wrote: »

So congrats on the publication- it can be a long painful process, but make sure that you really know what you're talking about and you want your name on this 10 years from now.

Thank you for your well wishes and concerns. The editorial board and reviewers are giants in the field of sensory science with international reputations. Therefore, I have some confidence that they know what they are talking about. I also have some confidence that they were reasonably certain that I knew what I was talking about.

Do you have any comments, questions or concerns regarding the proposed audio evaluation methodology?

hearingimpared

Ray and I have discussed it in some length. What he and I predicted when he was planning on posting it here are the following;

Haven't the naysayers been saying for decades that "if I could only see this audiophile stuff in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I would believe it"?

The answer would be a resounding YES! However we knew that the naysayers would pick apart certain items that have nothing to do with the content of the paper. That prophesy has been fulfilled here.

Well, I have something coming out in the world's leading sensory science journal and I would have thought they would be turning cartwheels and popping champagne corks at the prospect.

Unfortunately, the naysayers are so blind and close minded that even a published paper in a highly touted journal going into great detail with more than enough research and propositions is not good enough even though the naysayers put creedance in other people's opinions put out on the internet and charlitan's like the great and powerful Randi or Van Alstine (whose amps are far from good sounding), and Rodger Russel.

Instead, they are questioning the mathematical veracity, syntax and semantics.

One here is so hung up mathematical accuracy, why doesn't he address the mathematical inappropriateness of the ABX test to sound stimuli? and its overall failings to provide a good testing environment as well as taking into consideration the presure put under the participants not to mention that there is an inherent problem with the test to possibly have a 50% failure rate built in.

It's true what Confucius said over 2000 years ago: Raife

"Some people would complain even if you hung them with a NEW rope."

I sincerely hope that when you guys and you know who you are do get to read the paper you put aside your preconceived, misinformed, bias' and read it with a fresh outlook so as to get the full impact of such great research and proof that debunks what has been loudly written by people on the internet.

True, I am already a believer in that my experience has shown me the light but this paper just reinforces what I've already learned and known for the past 30 years. I didn't say 40 years because in my early young years in this hobby I was on the same page as the naysayers until I experienced it myself rather than going on what some magazine reviewer (back then) spewed.

Bravo again Raife, and I congratulate you on a brilliant piece of work. Thank you for doing all the work and covering all the bases on this, what will be, a break through in this debate over whether or not hearing is to be believed.

madmax

What really matters to me is the content makes sense and works, not that it got published in a journal. I'm glad it is getting published because it will enlighten those smart enough to learn.
madmax

hearingimpared

madmax wrote: »

What really matters to me is the content makes sense and works, not that it got published in a journal. I'm glad it is getting published because it will enlighten those smart enough to learn.
madmax

Chuck I agree about it not making a difference that it got published, I hope I didn't give that impression.

I do think it is a break through and brilliant piece of work. I'm willing to bet that other scientists and EEs expound on it take it even further.

Erik Tracy

madmax wrote: »

What really matters to me is the content makes sense and works, not that it got published in a journal. I'm glad it is getting published because it will enlighten those smart enough to learn.
madmax

I do think it is important that the paper gets published, circulated, and discussed within the audio industry and among consumers, reviewers, and self-proclaimed audio 'experts'.

If it can be quantitatively shown that the devotion to current ABX testing is flawed for audio component evaluations/comparisons, then we can get beyond the shouting matches between the whitewashed labeling of 'objectivists' (non-believers) and the 'subjectivists'(believers) that audible differences exist between components.

DarqueKnight

madmax wrote: »

What really matters to me is the content makes sense and works, not that it got published in a journal.

That is the principal thing. Whether I can barely add 2+2 or was awarded a Nobel prize in mathematics is irrelevant. Whether this evaluation protocol is passed out on leaflets on a street corner or published in a prestigious journal is irrelevant. What really matters is that it makes sense and that it works.

There is no need to just "take my word for it". The methodology I propose here can be easily tried in the comfort and privacy of one's home. I have given the basic steps...therefore it is not required to wait until the paper is published to try this.

Get some amps, cables, CD players, etc. and have some fun. That's what this hobby is about isn't it? For example, map the sound stage of a particular musical selection with one CD player, taking care to note the locations, qualities and attributes of the sound images within the sound stage. Note the tactile sensations against your body and coming through the floor and your chair. Switch to another CD player and map that. Then compare. Like anything else, the more you do it the easier it becomes.

In addition to my own test subjects, I have asked some of my science and engineering colleagues to try this methodology in their homes. Without exception, they all reported being able to hear sonic differences when comparing audio gear. Some people, who were not interested in comparing gear samples, used the methodology simply to enhance their perception of details in music.

Enjoy.

Bernal

+ 1
Congrats to you.
I would love to read the full article when it comes out...

WilliamM2

Maybe I'm confused about what you're trying to prove. That in sighted comparisons people detect differences, and in blind tests they don't? That's not news is it? No training needed either. Hopefully we get to read the whole thing soon.

Amherst

***************BRAVO DK**************

Really sic and tired of being labeled "psychoacoustically damaged", hope the impact of this paper is deep and real.

*****Get's reading glasses out drawer******cleans real good******Ahhh!

Ern Dog

When will the document be avail. for us to read?

unc2701

Study your math, kids. It's the key to the universe.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0887-8250

F1nut

unc2701 wrote: »

Study your math, kids. It's the key to the universe.

Hardly.

DarqueKnight

Ern Dog wrote: »

When will the document be avail. for us to read?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Publication Schedule

The Journal of Sensory Studies is published six times a year (Feb., Apr., Jun., Aug., Oct., and Dec.). "A Descriptive Evaluation Methodology For Consumer Audio Equipment" is scheduled to be published in the Journal's hard copy edition in December of 2010. This could possibly be moved up or back one issue (to either October 2010 or February 2011). Well in advance of the hard copy publication, the paper will be published on the Journal's website.

....

mdaudioguy

Fascinating stuff, to say the least! You've taken this leaps and bounds beyond the "regular" conversation/argument here. I've read through many of your threads over the past couple of months, and I've actually wondered about the process that occurs whereby the recording engineers "place" the sounds within the stage. I wonder about the imaging capabilities of the monitors they use. Surely nothing like SDAs... ? Why is it that we all don't aspire to replicate the studio? And then I start thinking about how no two pairs of speakers are ever going to sound precisely the same unless they're driven by the same exact amps with the same exact source in a room thats arranged precisely the same. Perhaps a bit of exaggeration, but I hope you get my point. It's a wonder the recording engineers can work their magic and that we're able to (hopefully) successfully replicate it at home. Thanks, DK, for your efforts to document your research, and for sharing it here. We're not worthy! And, congrats on getting it published. You should be proud.

cnh

unc2701 wrote: »

Study your math, kids. It's the key to the universe.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0887-8250

If that were the case then Experimental Physicists and Theoretical Physicists would always 'agree'. You obviously have a 'great faith' in the mathematical representation of REALITY...which really begins with Descartes (as a Grand Philosophical perspective for the West and Modern Science) and has been criticized endlessly in the field of philosophy for a Looooong time. This is not my field. But I do suggest that you peruse, if you haven't, the Philosophy of Science debates over the last half-century or so and see if PHILOSOPHERS agree as to whether math/science is universal and immutable or if it is just as affected by history and theory and culture as everything else that is 'human' is.

Personally I am not a fundamentalist of any kind. Not even a Mathematical Fundamentalist. Enjoy your 'faith'. Reality, whatever that IS, will always remain beyond the perceiving mind's grasp--math or no math.

cnh

DarqueKnight

unc2701 wrote: »

Study your math, kids. It's the key to the universe.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0887-8250

Most people here are not academics, therefore the point that unc2701 is trying to make is lost on most people here.

The link in unc2701's comment is calling attention to the Journal of Sensory Studies' Impact Factor of 1.059. A journal's impact factor is a measure of how often its articles have been cited by other authors. Some people mistakenly assume that low impact factor always equates to low quality and low importance. For example, the German Physics journal "Annalen der Physik" is one of the world's most important Physics journals. However, as you can see here: Annalen der Physik 1986-2009 Impact Factors, Annalen der Physik's 2009 impact factor was 1.16.

Why is Annalen der Physik important? For one thing, this journal published four of Albert Einstein's revolutionary physics papers. Even more important than this, many of the discoveries that form the foundation of modern physics were published in Annalen der Physik. Therefore, someone who would categorize Annalen der Physik as "low quality" because of its low impact factor is a fool. One of the contributing factors to Annalen der Physik's low impact factor is the fact that it is published in the German language.

Those interested in a quick tutorial on Impact Factor can read these articles:

Introducing The Impact Factor

Use and Misuse of the Impact Factor

Wikipedia-Misuse and Manipulation of Impact Factor

The second and third links are particularly insightful as it discusses how impact factor can be artificially inflated. For example, authors that publish papers which cite their own previously published papers in the same journal will raise that journal's impact factor and their own citation record. A journal's articles could be widely cited, but the articles could be of low quality. Conversely, a journal's articles could be of very high quality, but infrequently cited.

Narrowly focused "niche" journals, such as the Journal of Sensory Studies, typically have low impact factors because the number of people writing on topics in the field is relatively low. The same is true of many important engineering journals.

As I stated before, the focus should be on the validity of the proposed audio evaluation methodology and not on the impact factor of a particular journal.

unc2701 wrote: »

Study your math, kids. It's the key to the universe.

Correct understanding, rather than math, is the real key to the universe.

Since unc2701 is so mathematically inclined, it would be informative if he would provide a mathematical analysis of why the ABX protocol, despite its high beta error and low statistical power, is suitable for audio evaluation.

---

Definition: Red herring - an idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.

Red herrings are one of the most powerful tools in the naysayer's trickbag. However, like Jedi mind tricks, they only work on the weak minded.

---

Hey, I got some math for you, it goes like this:
Author doesn't know any math + journal with low impact factor = discredited audio evaluation article.

Why not just discredit the evaluation methodology?~DK

Are you nuts? We'd have to actually listen to music to be able to do that.

Oh, OK. Thanks for the explanation and math tutorial.~DK

cnh

I am an academic and D-Knight is quite correct above. I would add that, the New England Journal of Medicine is not without its POLITICS and POWER struggles. And that only someone who is woefully uninformed about how his field works...i.e., who publishes where and why? Could put such emphasis on peer reviewed journals that have high rates of readership. I could show you some of the most famous articles in my field that are more or less 'garbage' and not worth all their hits. And a few Brilliant pieces that have been published in lesser journals because they are critiques of the work of the Editors of a MAJOR journal--who effectively prevent their publication?

Let's NOT BE POLITICALLY NAIVE....or maybe you should read a bit of Social Science, perhaps?

cnh

hearingimpared

unc2701 wrote: »

Study your math, kids. It's the key to the universe.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0887-8250

It's seems your world is black and white with no in-between.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Since when does math have anything to do with hearing and feeling and associated emotion? What has it to do with listening to music through different gear and hearing a difference in the musical presentation?

My son is a math wizz! His brain is an astounding math machine. He can give you the answer to most math equations quickly done in his head. He couldn't tell you the intricacies of live or reproduced music . . . his answers are typically, "it sounds good or it sounds bad." However he couldn't tell you why.

I, on the other hand am math retarded but I can pick out and hear all the subtle nuances and intricacies of a piece of music live or through a myriad of different gear.

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

Twist.....twist....words on a screen so they mean what YOU want them to mean.

To me it sounds like rather than waste time and resources the "advisory board" wanted him to focus on something specific. Doesn't sound like any data was removed, just a different, more succinct path was taken.

Perhaps you should publish your own study picking up where the so called data was removed, so as to enlighten us as to what you feel is a glaring oversight. Of course you haven't even read the paper to make such a direct statement :rolleyes:

H9

Head, nail, hammer!