Stupid things you hear from the DBT/Null test crowd....
Comments
-
I don't have anyone on my ignore list,
Does that mean I'm off the list ?? Woohoo !! :cheesygrin:
I don't put anyone on ignore either. The entertainment factor is off the charts at times.
One more thing, ya know it is OK to agree to disagree, and I think thats how this thread will end up.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Tony is right. Although "agree to disagree" is a thought-terminating cliche, the repetition and lack of progression has made this particular thread of the discussion tedious. Additionally, this argument has become wholly tangential and digressive due to you wanting a response to every point given. Do you see how DK and I moved fairly swiftly through our conversation?
You asserting that my brevity is somehow inferior from lack of dealing with every bit of minutiae and site quotes and specific detailis is yet another logical fallacy, argumentum verbosium. I have made sufficient reference to the idea of the matter without misrepresenting your ideas.
If the explanations I have given haven't penetrated yet, they likely never will by repeating them a hundred more times. I am trying to give you more detailed rebuttals as you requested, but that has only spurred you to repeat the same points over again at the attempt to beat me into submission with a weaker argument, argumentum ad nauseum. Your first sentence in your response shows that there is just a breakdown in comprehension and there is typically no end in a conversation of that sort without a moderator.
If you truly believe that "ones perception" and "the act of perceiving" are the same thing, both philosophically and fundamentally, then this exhibits a foundational problem of the comprehension of the issue upon which we can never agree.design is where science and art break even. -
I let my personal experiences drive my choices. You may as well be arguing religion in these type threads.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
But I am aware that my mind is being tricked and that Jimmy Page isn't really playing a guitar in my room. I am also aware that my self-awareness allows me to be aware of this and that my motive in listening to stereophonic audio is not to be tricked, but to listen to stereophonic audio and the soundstage, image, detail, and clarity it provides.
Our (I do it too) application of the word "trick" to the stereophonic illusion is not really appropriate. A trick is some act done to deceive or cheat. An illusion is only a trick when the person perceiving the illusion assumes it to be real. The illusion of stereo, 3-D video and someone being sawn in half by a magician are not "tricks" because no rational person is being deceived into believing what they are hearing or seeing is real. Most people would be horrified if they saw a person actually sawn in half.As you can see the defintion of #3) of perception and the defintion of #1) and #2) of perceive are the same. The only difference is the lexical that is used.
Looking at the definitions you provided, it seems that perception is the result, understanding or interpretation of sensory information and to perceive is the act of receiving sensory information.
For example, some people watch soap operas and their perception is that they are witnessing real actual events in real people's lives. The illusion is so convincing to them that they view it as fact. Soap opera actors have been assaulted in real life due to something they "did" to someone else onscreen. Another person, with more complete understanding, watching the same soap opera views it as simple entertainment.
In the example above, two people perceive (receive) the exact same stimuli (the soap opera) but their perceptions (understandings) are entirely different. One person's perception is that of voyeuristic insight into real people's lives. Another person's perception is that of actors following a script. In the former person's case, the perception (understanding) and what was perceived (soap opera program) were two different things, fiction was being misunderstood to be fact. The latter person's understanding was that they were viewing an work of fiction. Their understanding matched up with the sensory information they were receiving.
Not withstanding what I said in the preceding paragraphs, I understand that "perceive" and "perception" are often used interchangeably. Sometimes words that mean different things come to be synonyms due to common usage. After a period of time, dictionaries will reflect such common usage. One example is the words skim and scan. In relation to reading, skim means to quickly read over casually or lightly. Scan means to read carefully and thoroughly. However, some dictionaries list skim and scan as synonyms.You may as well be arguing religion in these type threads.
Unlike religion, there is often some scientific basis for audio discussions.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Our (I do it too) application of the word "trick" to the stereophonic illusion is not really appropriate. A trick is some act done to deceive or cheat. An illusion is only a trick when the person perceiving the illusion assumes it to be real. The illusion of stereo, 3-D video and someone being sawn in half by a magician are not "tricks" because no rational person is being deceived into believing what they are hearing or seeing is real. Most people would be horrified if they saw a person actually sawn in half.
I agree with you said Ray. I was simply using the word "trick" to keep the same line of though that newrival started. Thank you for point that out.DarqueKnight wrote: »Looking at the definitions you provided, it seems that perception is the result, understanding or interpretation of sensory information and to perceive is the act of receiving sensory information.
For example, some people watch soap operas and their perception is that they are witnessing real actual events in real people's lives. The illusion is so convincing to them that they view it as fact. Soap opera actors have been assaulted in real life due to something they "did" to someone else onscreen. Another person, with more complete understanding, watching the same soap opera views it as simple entertainment.
In the example above, two people perceive (receive) the exact same stimuli (the soap opera) but their perceptions (understandings) are entirely different. One person's perception is that of voyeuristic insight into real people's lives. Another person's perception is that of actors following a script. In the former person's case, the perception (understanding) and what was perceived (soap opera program) were two different things, fiction was being misunderstood to be fact. The latter person's understanding was that they were viewing an work of fiction. Their understanding matched up with the sensory information they were receiving.
Not withstanding what I said in the preceding paragraphs, I understand that "perceive" and "perception" are often used interchangeably. Sometimes words that mean different things come to be synonyms due to common usage. After a period of time, dictionaries will reflect such common usage. One example is the words skim and scan. In relation to reading, skim means to quickly read over casually or lightly. Scan means to read carefully and thoroughly. However, some dictionaries list skim and scan as synonyms.
I am not sure how long these definitons of have been the same in the Mirriam-Webster dictionary. I checked in the one published in 1972 that I own and the defintions are exactly the same as the online one I quoted from. The one published in 1972 is the seventh college dictionary and inside the cover it says it is "based on the third college dictionay" which was published in 1931. It seems the defintions of "perceive" and "perception" have been the same for at least the last 81 years.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
I am not sure how long these definitions of have been the same in the Mirriam-Webster dictionary. I checked in the one published in 1972 that I own and the definitions are exactly the same as the online one I quoted from. The one published in 1972 is the seventh college dictionary and inside the cover it says it is "based on the third college dictionary" which was published in 1931. It seems the definitions of "perceive" and "perception" have been the same for at least the last 81 years.
Some dictionaries make a distinction between common usage, where perceive and perception can be used interchangeably, and psychological usage, where perceive and perception have different meanings.
The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Ed., 1997, define perceive (p. 1013) and perception (p. 1014) as follows:
perceive - 1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, esp. sight or hearing. 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend.
perception - 1. The process, act, of faculty of perceiving. 2. The effect or product of perceiving. 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected. 4.a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving. b. The capacity for such insight.
The following four definitions of perception pertain to the field of psychology and were found at various places on the Internet:
Perception: the active process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting the information brought to the brain by the senses.
Perception: the process of categorizing and interpreting information.
Perception: the neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.
Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio): the process of attaining awareness or understanding of the environment by organizing and interpreting sensory information.
The four terms above, as well as the psychological definition of perception from the American Heritage dictionary, all have to do with interpretation. While I agree that the terms perceive and perception have come to mean the same thing in common usage, we must note that within the field of psychology they have different meanings. Therefore, since stereo is a psycho-acoustic phenomenon, I think it is more appropriate to apply the term "perception" to the interpretation of sensory stimuli and "perceiving" to the receiving of sensory stimuli. The situation of two people watching (perceiving) the same television program and one person's (false) perception (interpretation and understanding) was that they were witnessing actual events while another person's (accurate) perception was that they were viewing a work of fiction.
In the context of stereophonic perception, two people can receive (perceive) the exact same sensory stimuli from a pair of loudspeakers. One person's perception (interpretation) of that stimuli might be a diffuse cloud of sound coming from the area directly in front of each speaker. The other person's perception might be that of separate, sharply defined sound images well outside the physical boundaries of the loudspeakers.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
The quote below is from "Perceptual Audio Evaluation-Theory, Method and Application", a text by Soren Bech and Nick Zacharov (2006). Dr. Bech is the head of research at Bang and Olufsen, Denmark. Dr. Zacharov is director of research and development at Genelec (loudspeaker manufacturer), Finland.
"The aim of this book is to study the topic of perceptual evaluation of audio. Audio is very multidimensional in nature as is its perception. In order to study the nature of audio, it is possible to measure the physical characteristics of an audio signal in the acoustic or electrical domains. However, this characterization of the physical audio signal does not tell us how the human auditory system will interpret and quantify it. In order to do this, a direct measurement of the human perception of the audio signal would be needed, as illustrated in Figure 1.1(a), but this is not yet possible." (p. 1)
The following definition is offered on page 3:
"Perceptual measurement An objective quantification of the sensorial strength of individual auditory attributes of the perceived stimulus.
Bech and Zacharov's use of the term "multidimensional" reminded me of some wisdom once dispensed by one of our forum members:Multi-dimensional? Tactile? lol.
I won't argue that judging the quality of audio gear is an objective process, because it isn't. It is very subjective. But what is being judged is audio only. It's not like wine or food, where you look at it, smell it and taste it.When judging audio gear, the only thing that truly matters is how it sounds.DK made fun of my disagreement with the usage of the terms "multi-dimensional" and "metrics" and posted some mocking comments, but no argument was made.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
I say we string John up and throw raw chicken livers at him for starting this thread.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
....Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Some dictionaries make a distinction between common usage, where perceive and perception can be used interchangeably, and psychological usage, where perceive and perception have different meanings.
The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Ed., 1997, define perceive (p. 1013) and perception (p. 1014) as follows:
perceive - 1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, esp. sight or hearing. 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend.
perception - 1. The process, act, of faculty of perceiving. 2. The effect or product of perceiving. 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected. 4.a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving. b. The capacity for such insight.
The following four definitions of perception pertain to the field of psychology and were found at various places on the Internet:
Perception: the active process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting the information brought to the brain by the senses.
Perception: the process of categorizing and interpreting information.
Perception: the neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.
Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio): the process of attaining awareness or understanding of the environment by organizing and interpreting sensory information.
The four terms above, as well as the psychological definition of perception from the American Heritage dictionary, all have to do with interpretation. While I agree that the terms perceive and perception have come to mean the same thing in common usage, we must note that within the field of psychology they have different meanings. Therefore, since stereo is a psycho-acoustic phenomenon, I think it is more appropriate to apply the term "perception" to the interpretation of sensory stimuli and "perceiving" to the receiving of sensory stimuli. The situation of two people watching (perceiving) the same television program and one person's (false) perception (interpretation and understanding) was that they were witnessing actual events while another person's (accurate) perception was that they were viewing a work of fiction.
In the context of stereophonic perception, two people can receive (perceive) the exact same sensory stimuli from a pair of loudspeakers. One person's perception (interpretation) of that stimuli might be a diffuse cloud of sound coming from the area directly in front of each speaker. The other person's perception might be that of separate, sharply defined sound images well outside the physical boundaries of the loudspeakers.
I was not aware that there was a separate "psychological defintion" of perception. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that perception is related to ones interpretation of the sound but also has to do with your awareness of the sound itself, which is also related to perceiving the sound. As shown in the psycological defintion of perception:DarqueKnight wrote: »perception - 1. The process, act, of faculty of perceiving. 2. The effect or product of perceiving. 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. b. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected. 4.a. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving. b. The capacity for such insight.
Recognition of sensory stimuli is the same as becoming aware of the stimuli. The diference between the psychological defintion of perception and the common defintion is that the common doesn't include interpreting the sound you are aware of. This was the one of the points I was trying to get across to newrival in several posts I made previously, but I was unaware of the difference in a "psychological defintion" and a "common definition" to make the difference and be able to articulate as effectively between the two. And, as you pointed out in the last part of your post part of interpreting ones perception is how close to or how far from reality your perception is. I also pointed this out in several posts I made. You are better at articulating your points than I am Ray. So, thank you for your posts and help.
Edit: Is anyone else learning anything? I have learned something, so I think this thread is useful. How useful may be up for debate. Others apparently have a different point of view however?
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
Edit: Is anyone else learning anything? I have learned something, so I think this thread is useful. How useful may be up for debate. Others apparently have a different point of view however?
You take away from threads like this what you will. Some will learn something, others will not. Point is to at least think about all the information posted, discussion is how we learn. You may come away with your feet still planted in your position but thats ok too. Not like the world will end today because of testing methods or placebo.
Good info anyway in this thread, agree or not, makes one think about it anyway, and thats all anyone could ask for.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
perception - 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.Recognition of sensory stimuli is the same as becoming aware of the stimuli.
I see recognition and awareness as two different things. If a person is shown a page of Sanskrit writing, but they have never seen it before and don't know what it is, they would be fully aware that they are looking at some smbols. They may correctly guess that it is a type of foreign handwriting. In either case, they won't recognize what they are seeing. They certainly won't be able to interpret it for correct understanding. They would be perceiving the symbols shown to them, but there would be no possibility of perception because the symbols could not be interpreted for meaning.
In the realm of stereo, a person untrained in stereophonic sound stage listening would perceive (hear) sound from the speakers, but they would not obtain the correct perception. They would not accurately interpret the sound as individual sonic images outside the physical boundaries of the speakers.Edit: Is anyone else learning anything? I have learned something, so I think this thread is useful. How useful may be up for debate. Others apparently have a different point of view however?
I agree with Paris that this is the best thread ever!
I find it shocking that some of the more "scientifically" oriented members of our forum seem to have lost interest in this thread...particularly after I did so much research.:sad:Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
I find it shocking that some of the more "scientifically" oriented members of our forum seem to have lost interest in this thread...particularly after I did so much research.:sad:
Your research isn't lost on all, and appreciated by many more than those that would verbally thank you for them. Thanks for taking the time to play intermediary.
While I have enjoyed your depth and breadth of argument, I wish I had the time to meet or at least approach it in response. Hopefully you understand
design is where science and art break even. -
The diference between the psychological defintion of perception and the common defintion is that the common doesn't include interpreting the sound you are aware of.
The term is common usage NOT common deffinition, but the issue with common usage, much like common knowledge, is the word common. Something common is not an absolute. It is a frequently held idea and is a function of exposure. What is common to you may or may not be common to me. Furthermore, I would submit that even the Merriam-Webster dictionary even makes it clear that the two words are not synonymous and that perception is a result of perceiving. Since something cannot be a result of itself, Perception cannot possibly be the same thing as perceiving. That would be akin to saying an observation is the same as thing observing. No matter what dictionary you are reading from, it is clear they are not the same.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of Perception:
1
a : a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive)
b : a mental image : concept
As I have shown you, there is no difference between the "two definitions." The definitions are clear. The problem lies within your common USAGE of the term which erodes the specificity of the actual word, ergo it's very meaning.This was the one of the points I was trying to get across to newrival in several posts I made previously, but I was unaware of the difference in a "psychological defintion" and a "common definition" to make the difference and be able to articulate as effectively between the two.
did you? is this when you were talking about self-awareness?And, as you pointed out in the last part of your post part of interpreting ones perception is how close to or how far from reality your perception is. I also pointed this out in several posts I made.design is where science and art break even. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »perception - 3. Psychol. a. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
I see recognition and awareness as two different things. If a person is shown a page of Sanskrit writing, but they have never seen it before and don't know what it is, they would be fully aware that they are looking at some smbols. They may correctly guess that it is a type of foreign handwriting. In either case, they won't recognize what they are seeing. They certainly won't be able to interpret it for correct understanding. They would be perceiving the symbols shown to them, but there would be no possibility of perception because the symbols could not be interpreted for meaning.
In the realm of stereo, a person untrained in stereophonic sound stage listening would perceive (hear) sound from the speakers, but they would not obtain the correct perception. They would not accurately interpret the sound as individual sonic images outside the physical boundaries of the speakers.
I did exaggerate my point by saying that they are the same. I should have said that one is similar and connected to the other. That is, in order to recognize something you must have had experience with it. This is one way the psychological defintion of perception ond the common defintion of perception are (indirectly) similar. Since the common defintion says in the bold section:1
a: a result of perceiving : observation (see perceive)
b: a mental image : concept
2
obsolete: consciousness
3
a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception>
b: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4
a: quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation
b: a capacity for comprehension
and because as I stated, in order to recognize something, you would need to have experience with it, and part of the defintion I was using for perception states:
"a: awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception>
b: physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience"
then in order to interpret something you would need to have experience with it and I hope you can see why I feel they are connected and therefore recognition and awareness are connected. However, I do see why you say they are different and I agree with you.
Edit: I hope this makes sense as my blood sugar is low. Please let me know if it makes sense or not Ray. I will amend this if I need to later.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
It makes sense.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
-
That was fun, now back to the subject at hand... the only thing that matters is what can be measured! haha
sorry things were getting to civil.design is where science and art break even. -
That was fun, now back to the subject at hand... the only thing that matters is what can be measured! haha
Hey now.........
...sorry things were getting to civil.
If you can be a little bit patient, I'm sure some "scientists" will drop by to share more of their "enlightenment" and "wisdom".:cheesygrin:Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
I say we string John up and throw raw chicken livers at him for starting this thread.
Corrected because that advice is appropriate at any time under any circumstance. Sal Palooza -
I say we string John up and throw raw chicken livers at him for starting this thread.
:cheesygrin:
I fully intended to participate in it too, but DK needs none of my brilliance to shine here.
It has been an excellent debate that has bees so far over my head I cannot understand any of it except for your brillant post Tony.:razz:
I understand now... use your own two ears and nobody else's.The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD
“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson -
Your honor I perceived there was a fork in the road, the placebo effect had me go to the right and that's how I ran over that small group of school children walking down the sidewalk, it's a disease your honor I really just need some help..Polk Audio SDA 2.3tl Fully Hot Rodded. 😎
SVS SB16 X2
Cary SLP-05/Ultimate Upgrade.
Cary SA-500.1 ES Amps
Cary DMS 800PV Network
OPPO UDP 205/ModWright Modification
VPI Scout TT / Dynavector 20x2
Jolida JD9 Fully Modified
VPI MW-1 Cyclone RCM
MIT Shotgun 3 cables throughout / Except TT, and PC’s -
..LOLO...Yep says it all about this thread..DarqueKnight wrote: »
.... -
Uncle Albert wonders why Naysayers vehemently demand scientific proof of audiophile claims, yet when
they are asked to provide scientific proof of their claims, they resort to insults, they run off, or they
desperately and/or ignorantly grab some pseudo-scientific nonsense that has no rational relevance to
stereophonic audio.
Overview and recap for those just joining us:
True audiophiles say that stereophonic audio should be evaluated in a manner in which it is used in the home: by a listener trained in stereophonic spatial perception. Blind testing is not required, since a properly trained listener's performance evaluation will not be influenced by visual bias (knowledge of brand, price or aesthetics). "True audiophile" here means someone who is actively and enthusiastically pursues playback of high quality stereophonic music recordings on high quality stereophonic audio systems.
Naysayers say that blind testing is absolutely required for stereo because visual bias cannot be trained out of a person. No credible and appropriate scientific support was provided for this position.
Scientific support for subjective testing of stereophonic audio systems using trained and experienced listeners was presented as follows:
1. The Bell Laboratories scientists who invented home audio systems were experts in the use of forced choice test methods (ABX, A/B, DBT) for telephony audio. When these same scientists became involved in the development of stereo, they switched to subjective sighted methods using trained and experienced listeners. Several peer-reviewed science journal papers were offered in evidence.
Reference:
Post 47 in this thread "design specifications for home stereo"
A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation,
2. Stereophonic sound is multidimensional in nature. As such, forced choice test methods, which are not designed to test multidimensional stimuli, can lead to erroneous results. Information from two authoritative texts, one from the field of food science and the other from the field of audio were offered in evidence.
References:
Lawless and Heymann text "the ABX test is not appropriate for multidimensional stimuli"
Post 340 in this thread, Bech and Zacharov text, "stereo is multidimensional"
Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing
Post 147 in this thread "a naysayer ridicules the concept that stereo is multidimensional"
3. Evidence was offered that it is not necessary to train bias out of an evaluator, although it is possible. The goal should be to train the evaluator so that bias has no effect on the evaluation of performance. Television evaluations are done with full product knowledge, even though the opportunity exists for visual bias. Evaluator training and experience provides a mechanism for setting aside visual bias in television trials. The field of economics offers the concept of the "debiased consumer". This is a consumer whose education and training in evaluating product performance allows them to not be affected by knowledge of brand, price or aesthetics.
References:
Post 323 in this thread, "anecdotal evidence that people are able to be trained to overcome much stronger biases than visual product bias"
Post 323 in this thread, "economics articles on debiased consumers"
Post 185 in this thread, "non-blind television evaluations"
Post 141 in this thread, "example of debiased audio consumer"
Summary
One is free to use any test methodology they choose for their own personal use. However, if one is claiming that a stereophonic test result is invalid because a blind test was not used, the following must be proved*:
1a. Stereophonic audio is not multidimensional and therefore forced choice test methods such as DBT, A/B and ABX are appropriate and required.
or
1b. Stereophonic audio is multidimensional, but there is some exception that will allow the use of forced choice test methods.
2a. There are errors in the many scientific papers from the fields of audio, psychology, sociology and economics that show that people can be debiased through training, education and therapy.
or
2b. People can be debiased, but there is something about stereophonic audio that prevents debiasing processes from being effective.
Hope this helps.
*
Posts 129 and 171 in this thread illustrate this:
1. An unscientifically justified opinion that there were no performance differences in power cords was offered.
2. When it was shown, with scientific measurements, that there were performance differences in power cords, this was "rebutted" with the unscientifically justified opinion that the differences were not audible.
3. When it was scientifically shown, with prior peer-reviewed research and measurements, that the differences in an audio signal's noise content related to the change in power cords was well above the threshold of audibility, it was unscientifically implied that the results would not be valid until proven with a blind test.:rolleyes:Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Very good summery my man, but I'm afraid it's going to fall on deaf ears. Ever think of another career ? I'm thinking trial lawyer.:cheesygrin:
Seriously, one bang up job you did and personally, I didn't even know most those studies existed. Yep, I learned something. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks ?:cheesygrin:HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Very good summery my man, but I'm afraid it's going to fall on deaf ears.
Most naysayers are a lost cause...but this info isn't for them. It's for those who have a serious interest in this hobby.Ever think of another career ? I'm thinking trial lawyer.:cheesygrin:
I'd prefer investment banking...with a reputable firm.I didn't even know most those studies existed.
Neither did I...until I began to question...:cheesygrin:Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
Uncle Albert wonders why Naysayers vehemently demand scientific proof of audiophile claims, yet when
they are asked to provide scientific proof of their claims, they resort to insults, they run off, or they
desperately and/or ignorantly grab some pseudo-scientific nonsense that has no rational relevance to
stereophonic audio.
Overview and recap for those just joining us:
True audiophiles say that stereophonic audio should be evaluated in a manner in which it is used in the home: by a listener trained in stereophonic spatial perception. Blind testing is not required, since a properly trained listener's performance evaluation will not be influenced by visual bias (knowledge of brand, price or aesthetics). "True audiophile" here means someone who is actively and enthusiastically pursues playback of high quality stereophonic music recordings on high quality stereophonic audio systems.
Naysayers say that blind testing is absolutely required for stereo because visual bias cannot be trained out of a person. No credible and appropriate scientific support was provided for this position.
Scientific support for subjective testing of stereophonic audio systems using trained and experienced listeners was presented as follows:
1. The Bell Laboratories scientists who invented home audio systems were experts in the use of forced choice test methods (ABX, A/B, DBT) for telephony audio. When these same scientists became involved in the development of stereo, they switched to subjective sighted methods using trained and experienced listeners. Several peer-reviewed science journal papers were offered in evidence.
Reference:
Post 47 in this thread "design specifications for home stereo"
A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation,
2. Stereophonic sound is multidimensional in nature. As such, forced choice test methods, which are not designed to test multidimensional stimuli, can lead to erroneous results. Information from two authoritative texts, one from the field of food science and the other from the field of audio were offered in evidence.
References:
Lawless and Heymann text "the ABX test is not appropriate for multidimensional stimuli"
Post 340 in this thread, Bech and Zacharov text, "stereo is multidimensional"
Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing
Post 147 in this thread "a naysayer ridicules the concept that stereo is multidimensional"
3. Evidence was offered that it is not necessary to train bias out of an evaluator, although it is possible. The goal should be to train the evaluator so that bias has no effect on the evaluation of performance. Television evaluations are done with full product knowledge, even though the opportunity exists for visual bias. Evaluator training and experience provides a mechanism for setting aside visual bias in television trials. The field of economics offers the concept of the "debiased consumer". This is a consumer whose education and training in evaluating product performance allows them to not be affected by knowledge of brand, price or aesthetics.
References:
Post 323 in this thread, "anecdotal evidence that people are able to be trained to overcome much stronger biases than visual product bias"
Post 323 in this thread, "economics articles on debiased consumers"
Post 185 in this thread, "non-blind television evaluations"
Post 141 in this thread, "example of debiased audio consumer"
Summary
One is free to use any test methodology they choose for their own personal use. However, if one is claiming that a stereophonic test result is invalid because a blind test was not used, the following must be proved*:
1a. Stereophonic audio is not multidimensional and therefore forced choice test methods such as DBT, A/B and ABX are appropriate and required.
or
1b. Stereophonic audio is multidimensional, but there is some exception that will allow the use of forced choice test methods.
2a. There are errors in the many scientific papers from the fields of audio, psychology, sociology and economics that show that people can be debiased through training, education and therapy.
or
2b. People can be debiased, but there is something about stereophonic audio that prevents debiasing processes from being effective.
Hope this helps.
*Posts 129 and 171 in this thread illustrate this:
1. An unscientifically justified opinion that there were no performance differences in power cords was offered.
2. When it was shown, with scientific measurements, that there were performance differences in power cords, this was "rebutted" with the unscientifically justified opinion that the differences were not audible.
3. When it was scientifically shown, with prior peer-reviewed research and measurements, that the differences in an audio signal's noise content related to the change in power cords was well above the threshold of audibility, it was unscientifically implied that the results would not be valid until proven with a blind test.:rolleyes:
Blind test or bust Ray! That's just obvious, you know?!:razz:
Good summary and although I am certainly not a "science is devine" person, I do belive it has merit when done properly.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
I like hot dogs. Sometimes with mustard, sometimes not. It's a matter of my personal tastes at the time.
Get it? -
I like hot dogs. Sometimes with mustard, sometimes not. It's a matter of my personal tastes at the time.
Get it?
Just as long as you don't put ketchup on your dog, it's cool. Nobody puts ketchup on a hotdog.:cheesygrin:HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
I like hot dogs. Sometimes with mustard, sometimes not. It's a matter of my personal tastes at the time.
Get it?
The relevant thing is:
Can you tell the difference between Ball Park, Oscar Mayer and store brand franks in a blind taste test? I don't think you can.:loneranger:Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »The relevant thing is:
Can you tell the difference between Ball Park, Oscar Mayer and store brand franks in a blind taste test? I don't think you can.:loneranger:
Touche! Big R! Touche!
