Stupid things you hear from the DBT/Null test crowd....

DarqueKnight

headrott wrote: »

After all, that's what Dr. Fletcher was trying to reproduce.

One of the things Dr. Fletcher wanted to address was the unavailability of the concert hall's "sweet spot". In every concert hall there are relativly few seats with optimum acoustics. The stereo sweet spot is analogous to the concert hall sweet spot. This is one of the reasons why Dr. Fletcher said that home stereo systems would provide greater emotional thrills to the music lover. Although most people would not have an opportunity to sit in a concert hall sweet spot, they could be front and center of the orchestra or band at home.

The original three channel stereo system design provided a wider sweet spot which could accomodate a small family at one time. The compromise of a two channel system with a smaller, one or two person sweet spot, was a big disappointment to Dr. Fletcher and his colleagues.

headrott

I see Ray. Just as it can be a big dissapointment if you are in the far left balcony in a concert hall. Why was the three channel stereo not produced then? Too much money for the average consumer?

Also, in my previous post I meant to say that just as between different concert halls there are different acoustics, so too are there different acoustics produced between different stereo systems utilizing different gear.

Greg

BeefJerky

DarqueKnight wrote: »

A naysayer is going to irrationally deny a different viewpoint no matter what. Here is a perfect example of how they do: Reading Is Fundamental

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

Point taken. Maybe the term skeptic would fit me better???

Syndil

Looks like I missed a lot in my absence. I'm only going to address one point, which I think summarizes my position:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As for your often repeated rant as to why don't more audiophiles prove what they hear by doing blind tests, I must ask you, who are you that someone needs to prove something to you? That is a very arrogant assumption.

This sentiment has been repeated numerous times, but it is based on a false assumption. I use blind testing for my own testing--blind testing done by someone else only eliminates that person's bias from the testing; it does not necessarily validate the results. As I said at the very beginning, how we perceive audio is subjective, not objective.

If I ever do present a challenge to test something blind, it is only to show that bias existed, not to prove to me that one piece of equipment is or isn't actually better than the other. I will and do make that determination on my own by doing the blind testing myself. Yes, blinding can lead to guessing, which is why you do several trials and tabulate the results, looking for a result of 80% or better to eliminate random guessing. Nothing new there.

The problem I have with the blind testing naysayers is that they have never offered a valid logical reason why blind testing shouldn't be performed. What is the problem with blinding? As I said before, you can do exactly the same type of listening tests blind that you do unblinded. The only difference is that instead of comparing, for example, a set of Pear Audio cables against a set of Monoprice cables, is that you are comparing cable X with cable Y. Yet somehow, this minor difference (not knowing the brand of the cables) will skew my results so that they are worthless? Sorry if it offends or not, but such a claim is ridiculous.

For me it comes down to this: Blind testing is no different than unblinded testing, minus the potential for bias. So why not? Where is all this vehement hatred for blind testing coming from, really? Rhetorical question.

headrott

Syndil wrote: »

.........This sentiment has been repeated numerous times, but it is based on a false assumption. I use blind testing for my own testing--blind testing done by someone else only eliminates that person's bias from the testing; it does not necessarily validate the results. As I said at the very beginning, how we perceive audio is subjective, not objective.

If I ever do present a challenge to test something blind, it is only to show that bias existed, not to prove to me that one piece of equipment is or isn't actually better than the other. I will and do make that determination on my own by doing the blind testing myself. Yes, blinding can lead to guessing, which is why you do several trials and tabulate the results, looking for a result of 80% or better to eliminate random guessing. Nothing new there.

The problem I have with the blind testing naysayers is that they have never offered a valid logical reason why blind testing shouldn't be performed. What is the problem with blinding? As I said before, you can do exactly the same type of listening tests blind that you do unblinded. The only difference is that instead of comparing, for example, a set of Pear Audio cables against a set of Monoprice cables, is that you are comparing cable X with cable Y. Yet somehow, this minor difference (not knowing the brand of the cables) will skew my results so that they are worthless? Sorry if it offends or not, but such a claim is ridiculous.

For me it comes down to this: Blind testing is no different than unblinded testing, minus the potential for bias. So why not? Where is all this vehement hatred for blind testing coming from, really? Rhetorical question.

A valid logical reason for not using blind tests (as I brought up in the other "stupid things" thread) is that blind tests were never intended to be used for stereophonic audio. This was brought up in Ray's posts. Bell Labs was using blind tests (double blind, etc.) for it's telephone lines. They (Dr. Fletcher et. al) then came up with a different testing method for stereophonic audio. This has already been thoroughly described by Ray. Perhaps you are biased against absorbing it?

Also, Ray has already listed why blinded testing is different from unblinded testing in stereophonic listening tests. Perhaps you are biased against absorbing those posts as well?

All this has been repeated numerous times is the reason I bring up your bias.

Greg

Syndil

None of those answer my question. What is intrinsically wrong with blind testing? "Some people didn't do it long ago so why should I" is not an answer.

heiney9

If you really want to know here you go. It's a lot to read and I doubt you'll take the time but if you are going to ask then...............

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?98139-Questions-Regarding-Power-Cable-ABX-Test&highlight=abx+test

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?103417-Notice-Of-Sensory-Science-Journal-Publication&highlight=abx+test

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104701-A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation&highlight=abx+test

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&highlight=abx+test

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?111056-Further-Thoughts-On-ABX-Testing-Of-Stereophonic-Audio-Systems&highlight=abx+test

I expect you to have some very well thought out responses with supporting evidence, by let's say tomorrow

H9

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

A naysayer is going to irrationally deny a different viewpoint no matter what. Here is a perfect example of how they do: Reading Is Fundamental

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

I didn't deny your evidence. I read the wrong study. Not surprising, when you consider that you didn't link to the actual study directly, but rather to your own opinion posts as usual.

You never did explain how Petri-Larmi conducting DBT's for artificially injected distortion on an audio signal, proves that there is an audible difference in power cables. Your measurements aren't convincing, unless you found some way to keep the THD on the power line constant, which it is not.

Sorry I'm not as easily fooled as BF.

WilliamM2

Syndil wrote: »

None of those answer my question. What is intrinsically wrong with blind testing? "Some people didn't do it long ago so why should I" is not an answer.

He already covered that:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

3. Any thing that agrees with the naysayers belief system will be religiously clung to, no matter how scientifically inappropriate.

He ignores that they were listening for preferences, not differences. Or is there some doubt there is a difference between two and three channel systems?

headrott

Syndil wrote: »

None of those answer my question. What is intrinsically wrong with blind testing? "Some people didn't do it long ago so why should I" is not an answer.

Using a blind test for something that is was not intended to be used for is very intrinsic, I do believe. As evidence of that statement, Dr Fletcher et. al came up with the unblinded, trained listener test for testing stereophonic audio. These were the inventors of stereophonic audio, and as Ray has said they set the permanent standard for testing methods of stereophonic audio. A permanent standard is something that would be used "long ago", today and in the future. Again, blind tests were used for Bell Lab's telephone lines which were not nearly as complex as stereophonic audio output. If you still do not understand, see Ray's threads kindly posted by H9 below. He's done the digging for you so you can know. (And what was the GI Joe motto? "Knowing is half the battle").

heiney9 wrote: »

If you really want to know here you go. It's a lot to read and I doubt you'll take the time but if you are going to ask then...............

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?98139-Questions-Regarding-Power-Cable-ABX-Test&highlight=abx+test

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?103417-Notice-Of-Sensory-Science-Journal-Publication&highlight=abx+test

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104701-A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation&highlight=abx+test

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&highlight=abx+test

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?111056-Further-Thoughts-On-ABX-Testing-Of-Stereophonic-Audio-Systems&highlight=abx+test

I expect you to have some very well thought out responses with supporting evidence, by let's say tomorrow

H9

Cool H9! I like the digging you have done! Hopefully Syndil will understand now.

Greg

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

You never did explain how Petri-Larmi conducting DBT's for artificially injected distortion on an audio signal, proves that there is an audible difference in power cables.

Why not read the study yourself and find out. So far you haven't been very receptive to anything DK posts so why are you going to be receptive to his answer to the above. Again you want others to tell YOU the "why's, how's and what's".

How about this, you read and analyze the study and come back with specific reasons why Petr-Larmi is flawed. And I don't mean general 2 sentence vague generalities, but a methodical, logical response that has evidence to the contrary. Also remember you are being critical of DK adding his opinion so be sure not to add anything that is your opinion to the anlysis, just the hard facts. Fair is fair, right?

My guess is there will be dead silence because either you are too lazy or aren't capable.

H9

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

How about this, you read and analyze the study and come back with specific reasons why Petr-Larmi is flawed. And I don't mean general 2 sentence vague generalities, but a methodical, logical response that has evidence to the contrary. Also remember you are being critical of DK adding his opinion so be sure not to add anything that is your opinion to the anlysis, just the hard facts. Fair is fair, right?

I never said that study was flawed. How about this, learn to read.

BTW, I'm not critical of DK adding his opinion, only that he links to his own opinion to back up what he claims as fact. I am sure you are incapable of seeing the flaw in that.

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I never said that study was flawed. How about this, learn to read.

BTW, I'm not critical of DK adding his opinion, only that he links to his own opinion to back up what he claims as fact. I am sure you are incapable of seeing the flaw in that.

Just like I thought, you are only interested in arguing semantics rather than actually discussing the issues.

H9

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

Just like I thought, you are only interested in arguing semantics rather than actually discussing the issues.

H9

You asked me to analise why the Petri-Larmi study was flawed, when I never claimed it was. How do I discuss that "issue"? Why don't you come up with a few more strawman arguments? It adds so much to the discussion.

Syndil

headrott wrote: »

Cool H9! I like the digging you have done! Hopefully Syndil will understand now.

None of this answers my question. Also, I have already stated that an ABX test is only used to tell if a difference exists, not make a determination as to which is better. For that an XY test over several trials is preferable.

The fact is that no one can give me a straight answer as to what the specific faults are with a blind test, because there are none.

heiney9

Syndil wrote: »

None of this answers my question. Also, I have already stated that an ABX test is only used to tell if a difference exists, not make a determination as to which is better. For that an XY test over several trials is preferable.

The fact is that no one can give me a straight answer as to what the specific faults are with a blind test, because there are none.

You have to be kidding me, out of all those posts plus the peer reviewed paper and you can't find an answer. WOW, just WOW.
You couldn't possibly have read all those posts as well as all the referenced material in those posts plus getting a copy of the peer reviewed paper all in a couple hours? It just goes to show again no one on the other side is willing to put in any kind of effort or research. It's all about the arguement.

The answer is there in those posts and in the Journal published paper. Sorry you aren't interested enough to find it. Mind you, I didn't say you have to agree with the answer.......but atleast find it and refute it.

H9

headrott

Syndil wrote: »

The fact is that no one can give me a straight answer as to what the specific faults are with a blind test, because there are none.

You need to be more specific as to there being faults with blind tests. This goes back to why I said that blind tests were never intended to be used for stereophonic audio. There are no faults with a properly set up blind test used in a situation that the test(s) were designed to be used in. The faults with blind tests occur when one tries to use blind tests in a situation they were not meant to be used in; in this case stereophonic audio. One of the faults with using the blind test in a stereophonic audio situation is that the stereophonic audio output is much more complex than a telephone line signal. First, a telephone line signal is monaural so:you don't have soundstage depth, width, height and interaural crosstalk and you have much greater resolution than in a monaural signal. Second, the frequency bandwidth is much smaller than stereophonic audio: this means that you have much fewer overtones and undertones to deal with. Of course the converse is true for stereophonic audio signals. Because of these facts (again) try reading this quote one more time, plus all of Ray's threads and the reference papers in his threads. If that does not answer your question, I'm sorry but you are unwilling to see the answer(s).:

headrott wrote: »

Using a blind test for something that is was not intended to be used for is very intrinsic, I do believe. As evidence of that statement, Dr Fletcher et. al came up with the unblinded, trained listener test for testing stereophonic audio. These were the inventors of stereophonic audio, and as Ray has said they set the permanent standard for testing methods of stereophonic audio. A permanent standard is something that would be used "long ago", today and in the future. Again, blind tests were used for Bell Lab's telephone lines which were not nearly as complex as stereophonic audio output. If you still do not understand, see Ray's threads kindly posted by H9 below. He's done the digging for you so you can know. (And what was the GI Joe motto? "Knowing is half the battle").

Greg

Syndil

You can point all you want to the quoted materials, and say, hey, look at this impressive wall of words, but the fact is that none of it addresses my question. In fact much of it has already been addressed, i.e. the faulty "multidimensional" comparison of sound to foods, ABX testing vs. XY testing, etc. Much of it seems to rail against a particular ABX testing procedure, but again, any test that can be performed unblinded can be performed blind. Not all blind testing is ABX testing, and as I have already stated, ABX testing should only be used to determine if a difference exists, not to rank one piece of equipment compared to another.

Einstein once said that if you can't explain something in layman's terms, then you probably don't understand it well enough. What I see with all that quoted material is someone with an agenda--a campaign against blind testing. I see a lot of faulty arguments supporting why someone would believe testing does not need to be blind, but many of those supporting points refer to tests that have little in common with the process of comparing competing pieces of audio equipment to determine which is better, which is what most of us are actually doing. Much of the quoted reference material is simply irrelevant to the point, and in fact some of it supports my own:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104701-A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation&p=1391205&viewfull=1#post1391205

Comparative listening tests to make subjective evaluations of the acoustic performance of radios, phonographs, and high-fidelity equipment are very important to successful design and development efforts. This paper describes appraisal techniques and statistical treatment of listening test results.

Test panels of judges often are used to rank consumer products where personal opinion is a factor.

A problem of bias exists in all ranking tests. The subject material used in the test, position of the set, and the order in which the sets are tested are only three examples.

Every effort must be made to remove any form of bias from the test. Visual prejudice may be removed by a curtain if required.

I'm trying to keep this simple. A dissertation is not required to answer my simple, one sentence question, as to how blind testing might skew the results of a particular test to be inaccurate. I'll say it again: Any test that can be performed unblinded can be performed exactly the same blinded. The only difference is the removal of the knowledge of what specifically you are listening to at the time, thus eliminating the potential for bias.

To use the example I stated before, it's like comparing cable X vs. cable Y instead of comparing a Pear Audio cable vs. Monoprice cable. Same cables, same listening procedures (whatever you prefer), etc., only you don't know which cable is X and which is Y. Tell me how this one difference might invalidate the results of the test. "I've trained myself to not be biased" is not answer to my question.

Syndil

headrott wrote: »

There are no faults with a properly set up blind test used in a situation that the test(s) were designed to be used in. The faults with blind tests occur when one tries to use blind tests in a situation they were not meant to be used in; in this case stereophonic audio. One of the faults with using the blind test in a stereophonic audio situation is that the stereophonic audio output is much more complex than a telephone line signal.

What faults, specifically, does this produce? You seem to state it as if it is a foregone conclusion, but there is no supporting argument.

DarqueKnight

headrott wrote: »

I see Ray. Just as it can be a big dissapointment if you are in the far left balcony in a concert hall. Why was the three channel stereo not produced then? Too much money for the average consumer?

The greatest resistance came from the record company manufacturers and they had a legitimate concern. Aside from the costs of retooling the industry standard from one channel to three, there was also the reality that the recording time per LP side was going to be reduced by two-thirds. This meant that an LP, short for "long playing" record, would no longer be "long playing" because the play time would be reduced from 45 minutes to 15 minutes. Many recordings held up to 52 minutes per side if the dynamic range was reduced. The compromise of a two channel system still represented a reduction in play time by half.

Imagine consumer reaction to buying records that reduced the total entertainment content from 1.5 hours to half an hour. People today (myself included) complain about having to change record sides every 22 minutes. Imagine what the reaction would have been back then to having to change sides every 15 minutes.

In addition to the additional cost of the third channel, the three channel system would have presented aesthetic challenges to some homeowners regarding proper placement of the third speaker.

I have a few concert DVD's recorded in 5.1 channel mix. Turning off the two rear channels allows me to experience what three channel stereo sounds like with a WIDE, ROCK SOLID sweet spot. The only two channel stereo I have heard that comes reasonably close to the center image stability and wide sweet spot of three channel stereo is SDA.

heiney9

Syndil wrote: »

What faults, specifically, does this produce? You seem to state it as if it is a foregone conclusion, but there is no supporting argument.

See, now I KNOW you haven't bothered to read any of the material or analysis DK has provided. Because if you did you would know.

Headrott, give it up. He's just arguing to hear himself argue. All the answers to his inquiries have been addressed amongst the links to posts I provided and within those posts there are several references as well as an opportunity to read a published paper.

Again, not saying you have to agree with the findings and outcome, but Syndil you are just a broken record countering with the same question, a question that is thoroughly answered within the information I provided you with. Nothing more to say at this point. You can lead a horse to water, but you can make him drink.

H9

Syndil

heiney9 wrote: »

See, now I KNOW you haven't bothered to read any of the material or analysis DK has provided. Because if you did you would know.

Wow, never saw that answer coming. [/sarcasm]

Feel free to point me to specifically where my question is answered. Pointing to a huge block of text and saying "trust me, the answer is in there... somwhere" isn't going to cut it.

Better yet, put it in your own words.

heiney9

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Turning off the two rear channels allows me to experience what three channel stereo sounds like with a WIDE, ROCK SOLID sweet spot. The only two channel stereo I have heard that comes reasonably close to the center image stability and wide sweet spot of three channel stereo is SDA.

Amen to that!!

Had some concert DVD's playing last night and many times I was getting chills from the "realism".

Ani DiFranco- Live at Babeville is a simply stunning performance and recording. She converted an old 19th Century church into her studio/performing venue which seats about 200, IIRC. Chills, I tell you......chills.

Cowboy Junkies - No Long Journey Home DVD. Damn near had a religious experience. What an incredible performance and recording. Like being there in the front row all thanks to my SDA's, tubes, MIT cables, modded dac, Pass amp.

H9

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

You have to be kidding me, out of all those posts plus the peer reviewed paper and you can't find an answer. WOW, just WOW.
You couldn't possibly have read all those posts as well as all the referenced material in those posts plus getting a copy of the peer reviewed paper all in a couple hours? It just goes to show again no one on the other side is willing to put in any kind of effort or research. It's all about the arguement.

The answer is there in those posts and in the Journal published paper. Sorry you aren't interested enough to find it. Mind you, I didn't say you have to agree with the answer.......but atleast find it and refute it.

H9

H9, do you remember some years ago when the forum's naysayer tribe would collectively scream that if audiophile concepts were valid, they would be supported with peer-reviewed research in scientific journals? When such peer-reviewed research was offered, they then dismissed it without any scientific rebuttal.

heiney9 wrote: »

It's all about the arguement.

I think its all about envy.

sucks2beme

Blind testing- ok.
DBT, overkill nonsense. It's just someone throwing about terms without
thinking of how it applies to audio. If the listener doesn't know, it's good enough.
The real issue is critical music listening takes time, and few of us can rope in
a willing party to sit around and swap stuff for testing. So for the most part
it's a solo act, with a lot of questioning self doubt. The more expensive item doesn't
always win. There is the part that many of the DBT guys don't take into account.
They think we justify buying most $$$ because it sounds better. No, we find what sounds
better, and more $$$ seems to get us there, but not always. And too often it turns into
a lateral move. That's why we have such an active flea market here. Buy cheap, test
make a judgement, and the loser goes back to the FM.

Syndil

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I think its all about envy.

I think it's all about you both not being able to address my concerns directly. I see a lot of dodging and dismissal, whereas I am being brief and to the point. I suspect the reason no one can tell me specifically why an XY test is inaccurate compared to an unblinded test is because the minor difference of not knowing exactly what you are listening to should in no way affect the results unless bias is present.

heiney9

Syndil wrote: »

I think it's all about you both not being able to address my concerns directly. I see a lot of dodging and dismissal, whereas I am being brief and to the point. I suspect the reason no one can tell me specifically why an XY test is inaccurate compared to an unblinded test is because the minor difference of not knowing exactly what you are listening to should in no way affect the results unless bias is present.

It's in the 'effing papers and links provided. There is no 3 sentence answer. You have been told WHERE to find the answer, yet you refuse. I don't understand why you keep asking? The work has already been prepared and provided, nothing more I can do to make you get your answer.

No one had dodged or dismissed anything. You weren't here when this entire discussion unfolded a couple years ago. There has been a plethora of info and heavy discussion presented, why should I take MY time to rehash it when you can't and won't bother to take a look see. This subject and your question is old news and has been covered in the links I provided as well as the opportuniy to read a published peer reviewed Journal study which IS aimed right at the center of your inquiries.

Why won't you put in the effort to read it? But expect others to wade back into the subject matter and repeat it, when it's already laid out there on a platter for your consumption?

H9

Syndil

I have read it, processed it, and explained why it is inadequate. If you truly understand why you believe blind testing is inadequate, then you should be able to put it into a simple answer, rather than just pointing to a block of text and saying, "but... but...", which is essentially what you are doing now.

You could have answered my question in less words than it took you to write your last post, if you had an answer.

heiney9

double post

heiney9

Sorry, but you have explained nothing. Where did you get a copy of the published Journal?

H9