The Sound Of Hard Drive Enclosures

DarqueKnight

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

If I consistently perceive a sound stage width of 10 feet with one amp and a sound stage width of 15 feet with another amp, how would a blind test add more validity to that process?

Well for starters, and this isn't being contrary, you wouldn't need to worry if it was blinded.

No, you weren't being contrary, you were being deflective. What, exactly, wouldn't I need to worry about?

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

I'm curious if FFT or some other form of instrumentation could show what is going on in that scenario.

Since the reason for the existence of stereophonic audio is creating the illusion of a three dimensional musical performance, I'm sure the scientists at AudioScienceReview or Whats Best Forum have an answer for this. Certainly you can provide a link real information addressing these questions. After all, you said this:

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

But you slew on over to AudioScienceReview or Whats Best Forum and we find some real information vs a listeners impression.

K_M

DarqueKnight wrote: »

If I consistently perceive a sound stage width of 10 feet with one amp and a sound stage width of 15 feet with another amp, how would a blind test add more validity to that process?

Is that not self explanatory?
I will spell it out....assuming you are being serious.

When you sit there knowing what you are auditioning and you hear one thing, you should hear the same thing, being unaware of what item you are listening to...obviously, right?

If that outcome is the same, it validates what you perceived or seemed to hear, regardless of knowing or not knowing what was up for audition.

If the outcome is different, it will show your knowledge of the item being auditioned may have influenced what you perceived you heard or not.


Even with your "Training", that you say you use, it has no built in validation, but merely relies on you, the same person doing the test to assume you are impartial, unbiased and perceiving things the same whether sighted or unsighted.

It is simply the next step to verify the outcome. Nothing to be afraid of.

steveinaz

The important points here are being missed; Ray's conclusions happened DESPITE his previously mentioned bias'. That should be quite telling, in and of itself. I have had similar experiences with cables. I was "suppose" to like AQ Diamondbacks better than the cheaper AQ Copperhead; they didn't last 2 days in my system. I went back to the budget Copperhead. If differences are obvious without the need for blind testing---AND---the results lend credibility because you were betting against it in the first place; why dissect the conclusion?

Ray has equipment I could only wish to own, and has had his ears on many great pieces. His research is always well thought out, measured (when possible), variables minimized as much as reasonably possible, and he has no fear of calling any baby ugly. In short, I TRUST his findings.

K_M

steveinaz wrote: »

The important points here are being missed; Ray's conclusions happened DESPITE his previously mentioned bias'. That should be quite telling, in and of itself. I have had similar experiences with cables. I was "suppose" to like AQ Diamondbacks better than the cheaper AQ Copperhead; they didn't last 2 days in my system. I went back to the budget Copperhead. If differences are obvious without the need for blind testing---AND---the results lend credibility because you were betting against it in the first place; why dissect the conclusion?

Ray has equipment I could only wish to own, and has had his ears on many great pieces. His research is always well thought out, measured (when possible), variables minimized as much as reasonably possible, and he has no fear of calling any baby ugly. In short, I TRUST his findings.

You are right on many points. I think we got off on a tangent about how to compare things in theory and went off the rails.
No one was accusing him of doing anything wrong or being or not being biased or any of that stuff, but merely, questioning how and why, as everyone is different.

I have done sighted/un-sighted comparisons with things I was sure, I could tell apart and failed when blind. It is far easier to become overly confident, than it is to admit one is not sure.

DarqueKnight

K_M wrote: »

Is that not self explanatory?
I will spell it out....assuming you are being serious.

Nice try, but I will leave you with these words of wisdom from Bell Laboratories scientists F. K. Harvey and M. R. Schroeder:

"Critical listeners were sought in these tests because of a desire to set permanent standards. At the moment, only a small percentage of people fully appreciate high fidelity. Even less appreciate or understand stereo. However, there is a growing sophistication evidenced among users of stereo equipment. Anticipating the future, it seemed wise to avoid naive or unconcerned personnel in these tests to prevent establishing loose standards which eventually might have to be abandoned.

The listeners chosen were sophisticated in the art of sound localization either by working in this field or by education before testing. They were felt to be the equal of any serious listener who is accustomed to playing the same records many times and thus becomes familiar with the more subtle artistic and technical effects."

Citation: Harvey, F. K. and Schroeder, M. R., "Subjective Evaluation of Factors Affecting Two-Channel Stereophony", Journal of The Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 19-28.

F. K. Harvey and Dr. Manfred R. Schroeder were two of the Bell Laboratories scientists, along with team leader Dr. Harvey Fletcher, who were part of the research team that invented and developed home stereo systems. Prior to beginning their work on stereophonic audio system development, these Bell Labs researchers were involved in voice quality analysis and improvement, in which blind discrimination tests were used extensively. When they moved to work involving multidimensional aural stimuli, they chose more scientifically appropriate testing methods.

K_M wrote: »

Nothing to be afraid of.

Calling me "afraid" is as ridiculous as calling someone "afraid" because they wouldn't use a hammer to drive screws into unassembled furniture.

You keep making these passive/aggressive remarks, yet you have not offered one shred of scientific support for the necessity of blind testing of stereophonic audio. That is what you should have spelled out.

So who's really afraid?

Further study:

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/104973/a-historical-overview-of-stereophonic-blind-testing/p1

http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/104701/a-survey-of-early-stereophonic-system-subjective-evaluation

heiney9

DSkip wrote: »

Sigh.

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

DSkip wrote: »

Sigh.

Double Sigh

heiney9

You created the sigh, so sigh all you want, but your posts are sigh worthy

H9

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

You created the sigh, so sigh all you want, but your posts are sigh worthy

H9

Can you provide at least five scientific links proving that?

If you fail to get what is funny in this thread, I feel sad for you, hence the sigh....

K_M

Nightfall wrote: »

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It is as ridiculous as saying you are going to measure the interior volume of two boxes, and the box maufacturers must be hidden because knowing that one box came from Tiffany's,

Those are objective measurements though... I don't think that's a problem.

At Audiostream there is often a lot of talk about mixed signal systems (AGN + DGN), digital cabling, USB 'regenerators' etc... and perceptual changes in audio. But there is never a measurement about how the analog output of a DAC is affected. Not even something as trivial as using Audacity and performing FFT.

But you slew on over to AudioScienceReview or Whats Best Forum and we find some real information vs a listeners impression.

I'd be curious to know how imaging and sound staging is measured, pray tell.

Sound staging and Imaging are not actual real concrete things. They are perceived sound images in our minds.

Like asking how does one measure how we feel about a rainbow. You can not measure a human's reaction to something.

heiney9

Wow- what form of reality do you live in? Serious question actually.

H9

ZLTFUL

K_M wrote: »

Like asking how does one measure how we feel about a rainbow. You can not measure a human's reaction to something.

I am sure that the entire psychological sciences are glad to know that their area of study is worthless.

steveinaz

K_M wrote: »

Sound staging and Imaging are not actual real concrete things. They are perceived sound images in our minds.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the above observation. I'd go into "why" but I don't like wasting time.

BlueFox

K_M wrote: »

Sound staging and Imaging are not actual real concrete things. They are perceived sound images in our minds.

So you are saying that they don't exist. Rather, they are just an illusion of our minds. Okay. But if so then why won't our minds make that illusion with any stereo? Of course the answer is they do exist, and the electrical signal needed to achieve that is dependent on the source, pre, amps, speakers, power, and cables.

txcoastal1

BlueFox wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

Sound staging and Imaging are not actual real concrete things. They are perceived sound images in our minds.

So you are saying that they don't exist. Rather, they are just an illusion of our minds. Okay. But if so then why won't our minds make that illusion with any stereo? Of course the answer is they do exist, and the electrical signal needed to achieve that is dependent on the source, pre, amps, speakers, power, and cables.

You forgot the recordings

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

Wow- what form of reality do you live in? Serious question actually.

H9

Depends. as some of the "Regulars" on here, go out of their way to kinda be obtuse to anyone "Newer", and often give answers that tend to obfuscation.

My answer made total sense, if one understands that soundstage is a virtual thing that only exists in our minds.

We can hear sounds coming from "imaginary" points in space, but those sounds are not real actually there, virtually "heard" due to how our hearing works.

Speaker dispersion characteristics and other things, will help create this soundstage, but there is no actual soundstage, but merely what a person hears when listening. It is internal to the person, and varies by individual to some extent.

Absolute_Zero

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Nice try, but I will leave you with these words of wisdom from Bell Laboratories scientists F. K. Harvey and M. R. Schroeder:

"Critical listeners were sought in these tests because of a desire to set permanent standards. At the moment, only a small percentage of people fully appreciate high fidelity. Even less appreciate or understand stereo. However, there is a growing sophistication evidenced among users of stereo equipment. Anticipating the future, it seemed wise to avoid naive or unconcerned personnel in these tests to prevent establishing loose standards which eventually might have to be abandoned.

The listeners chosen were sophisticated in the art of sound localization either by working in this field or by education before testing. They were felt to be the equal of any serious listener who is accustomed to playing the same records many times and thus becomes familiar with the more subtle artistic and technical effects."

Citation: Harvey, F. K. and Schroeder, M. R., "Subjective Evaluation of Factors Affecting Two-Channel Stereophony", Journal of The Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 19-28.

F. K. Harvey and Dr. Manfred R. Schroeder were two of the Bell Laboratories scientists, along with team leader Dr. Harvey Fletcher, who were part of the research team that invented and developed home stereo systems. Prior to beginning their work on stereophonic audio system development, these Bell Labs researchers were involved in voice quality analysis and improvement, in which blind discrimination tests were used extensively. When they moved to work involving multidimensional aural stimuli, they chose more scientifically appropriate testing methods.

Since Bell Labs was mentioned:

The purpose of the present paper is to describe a test procedure which has shown promise in this direction and to give descriptions of equipment which have been found helpful in minimizing the variability of the test results. The procedure, which we have called the “ABX” test, is a modification of the method of paired comparisons. An observer is presented with a time sequence of three signals for each judgment he is asked to make. During the first time interval he hears signal A, during the second, signal B, and finally signal X. His task is to indicate whether the sound heard during the X interval was more like that during the A interval or more like that during the B interval. For a threshold test, the A interval is quiet, the B interval is signal, and the X interval is either quiet or signal.

About the Authors:

Nearly 75 years ago, Harvey C. Fletcher and Wilden A. Munson—two Bell Labs engineers studying various aspects of subjective loudness—changed the way in which the world understands the hearing process. Their research asked a large number of subjects to compare the relative volume of two tones to a standard 1kHz tone at a set level. Averaging the results collected from the group, Fletcher and Munson defined of human hearing awareness at various frequencies.

DarqueKnight

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

Since Bell Labs was mentioned: ...

What? Was this supposed to be some great revelation?

You must have some debilitating reading comprehension issues because the very statement of mine that you quoted mentioned that the same Bell Labs researchers who used non-blind discriptive tests for stereo previously worked on telephone audio where they used blind discrimination tests (like ABX).

Since you missed it, in your zeal, here it is again, with the important part highlighted in red:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

F. K. Harvey and Dr. Manfred R. Schroeder were two of the Bell Laboratories scientists, along with team leader Dr. Harvey Fletcher, who were part of the research team that invented and developed home stereo systems. Prior to beginning their work on stereophonic audio system development, these Bell Labs researchers were involved in voice quality analysis and improvement, in which blind discrimination tests were used extensively. When they moved to work involving multidimensional aural stimuli, they chose more scientifically appropriate testing methods.

In view of the above, I am not sure why you are acting like you are making some great "revelation".

Furthermore, in my research article on the history of blind testing in stereophonic audio, which I posted on this forum in August of 2010 (and which was published in the September 2010 issue of Affordable Audio - Issue #57), I said the following (again, notice the parts in red ) :

DarqueKnight wrote:

The application of blind and double-blind tests is thought by a small, but vocal, minority in the audio community to be the supreme evaluation standard for detecting audible differences in audio systems. It is true that some types of audio systems are well suited for blind and double-blind A/B or A/B/X type tests. A/B and A/B/X tests are useful in scenarios when the two audio signals being compared are simple in nature. For example, telephone company engineers have routinely used, and continue to use, A/B and A/B/X tests to evaluate improvements in voice circuit quality. [1] [2] [3] [4] However, we must realize and understand that a test that is suitable for one type of audio system might not be suitable for another. It is worth noting that the same company (the Bell Telephone System) that was responsible for the invention and implementation of telephone service was the same company that was responsible for the invention and implementation of home stereophonic audio systems. [5] [6] [7] It is even more interesting to note that while A/B and A/B/X tests were found to be appropriate for evaluating voice quality improvements on bandwidth-limited telephone circuits, subjective, non-blind listening tests based on careful listening, evaluator training and realistic home listening conditions were the scientific standards for the evaluation of stereophonic audio systems.

Link to thread: http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/104973/a-historical-overview-of-stereophonic-blind-testing/p1

Both reading, and reading comprehension, are fundamental.

Absolute_Zero

Where did they abandon bias controlled testing?

What you posted only says the tolerances for human subjects they would test with was made tighter.

heiney9

K_M wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

Wow- what form of reality do you live in? Serious question actually.

H9

Depends. as some of the "Regulars" on here, go out of their way to kinda be obtuse to anyone "Newer", and often give answers that tend to obfuscation.

My answer made total sense, if one understands that soundstage is a virtual thing that only exists in our minds.

We can hear sounds coming from "imaginary" points in space, but those sounds are not real actually there, virtually "heard" due to how our hearing works.

Speaker dispersion characteristics and other things, will help create this soundstage, but there is no actual soundstage, but merely what a person hears when listening. It is internal to the person, and varies by individual to some extent.

You are on another planet apparently. Never heard such gobbly-****, nonsense in all my time on audio BB's and forums. You can't be serious, this is a huge diversion so you don't have to back peddle or answer the hard questions or provide any scientific proof.

If you actually believe that..............you have no idea about the reality of music recording and reproduction.

But, I must say it fits into a nice, neat, little basket and allows you to not have to answer any of the hard questions already posed to you. Act like a wackadoodle and everyone will leave you alone.

H9

Note: I didn't call you a wackadoodle, I said you are acting like one.

heiney9

We should all get a mono system and then create the soundstage in our mind from imaginary points of space.

Heck, just get an AM radio and go to town, why all this expensive and complicated gear if we can just create it out of nothing. Actually, do we even need the music. Why not just imagine it all. Lots of money saved there.

DarqueKnight

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

Where did they abandon bias controlled testing?

Where did I say they abandoned bias controlled testing?

I said, and the Bell Labs technical papers I cited, indicated that they abandoned blind ABX as a testing method for stereophonic audio.

Your thinking is based on the erroneous and widely held belief that blinding is the only method of controlling bias. There is no scientific support for this position.

I realize this is difficult for you (all) to swallow, but the truth is the truth.

Absolute_Zero

We are talking about controlling of bias or talking about how you can train the bias out of someone.

The only take away from what you posted is that they aren't using people off the street but restricted the selection criteria. Simply not seeing what connection you are attempting to make that sighted testing of two components is somehow not going to be influencing someone.

Harman Labs still does bias controlled testing today.

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

Wow- what form of reality do you live in? Serious question actually.

H9

Depends. as some of the "Regulars" on here, go out of their way to kinda be obtuse to anyone "Newer", and often give answers that tend to obfuscation.

My answer made total sense, if one understands that soundstage is a virtual thing that only exists in our minds.

We can hear sounds coming from "imaginary" points in space, but those sounds are not real actually there, virtually "heard" due to how our hearing works.

Speaker dispersion characteristics and other things, will help create this soundstage, but there is no actual soundstage, but merely what a person hears when listening. It is internal to the person, and varies by individual to some extent.

You are on another planet apparently. Never heard such gobbly-****, nonsense in all my time on audio BB's and forums. You can't be serious, this is a huge diversion so you don't have to back peddle or answer the hard questions or provide any scientific proof.

If you actually believe that..............you have no idea about the reality of music recording and reproduction.

But, I must say it fits into a nice, neat, little basket and allows you to not have to answer any of the hard questions already posed to you. Act like a wackadoodle and everyone will leave you alone.

H9

Note: I didn't call you a wackadoodle, I said you are acting like one.

Oh wow, I was expecting you to at least use DK's favorite argument.
Find scientific proof I am wrong, and at least 5 links proving your point.

I get it, you took the easy way out and just name called.
Clever!

DarqueKnight

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

We are talking about controlling of bias or talking about how you can train the bias out of someone.

Training bias out of someone is a bias control method. Again, blind testing is not the only way to control bias.

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

The only take away from what you posted is that they aren't using people off the street but restricted the selection criteria.

Base on what you have written, I can understand why you would think that.

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

Simply not seeing what connection you are attempting to make that sighted testing of two components is somehow more beneficial than bias control of the DUT.

As I have said many times, the knowledge of what is tested is not a relevant part of descriptive testing with trained listeners. The performance of the item is what is being measured, therefore, the identity of the item is irrelevant. This is not a complex, esoteric concept.

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

Harman Labs still does bias controlled testing today.

And drug dealers in South America are becoming billionaires by selling poison...so what is your point?

K_M

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

We are talking about controlling of bias or talking about how you can train the bias out of someone.

Training bias out of someone is a bias control method. Again, blind testing is not the only way to control bias.

Again, where did you get this training?

Have you passed tests or are certified?
Is this a seminar, something online, something you created yourself?

Like are you simply "willing" it away in your mind?

DarqueKnight

K_M wrote: »

Oh wow, I was expecting you to at least use DK's favorite argument.
Find scientific proof I am wrong, and at least 5 links proving your point.

I get it, you took the easy way out and just name called.
Clever!

Please quote a single example of where I asked you to find scientific proof that I was in error. I asked you to provide scientific proof that you were right. The two are not the same thing.

My favorite method of argument is to state a position, and then state my experiential and scientific basis for the position. In science, no one proves their position by asking others to prove them wrong. If someone has a contravening position, they should provide scientifically justification...not to prove someone else wrong...but to support their own position.

I get it, you took the easy way out and just deflected from your inability to scientifically justify your position. Deceitful and dishonest!

The fact that you have to make gross deflections, gross misrepresentations, and outright lie to make a point indicates that you don't have confidence in your positions.

It appears to me that you have nothing of substance to contribute to this thread other than bickering.

Absolute_Zero

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Training bias out of someone is a bias control method. Again, blind testing is not the only way to control bias.

You quoted "reduced six cognitive biases by more than 30% immediately and by more than 20% as long as three months later"

That's bias reduction dude. Not elimination.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As I have said many times, the knowledge of what is tested is not a relevant part of descriptive testing with trained listeners.

You can say what ever you want. Any one can.

Absolute_Zero wrote: »

Harman Labs still does bias controlled testing today.

And drug dealers in South America are becoming billionaires by selling poison...so what is your point?

[/quote]

Harman (now Samsung) still uses bias controlled measures. So it's an issue of whom I'm would believe to have more credibility.

All your quotations still haven't explicitly pointed out where Bell Labs stopped performing blinded comparisons when item A and item B were compared. Just because they may have gotten people that know more about what to listen for isn't debiasing.

heiney9

Imaginary substance and imaginary bickering.

I am waiting for her to tell me why we have to have such nice stereo gear if it's all contrived in our minds from imaginary points in space. Why not a single speaker and then let our imagination run wild?

Better yet, why does she own so many components and speakers if it's all just made up in our minds from imaginary points in space?

H9

K_M

DarqueKnight wrote: »

K_M wrote: »

Oh wow, I was expecting you to at least use DK's favorite argument.
Find scientific proof I am wrong, and at least 5 links proving your point.

I get it, you took the easy way out and just name called.
Clever!

Please quote a single example of where I asked you to find scientific proof that I was in error. I asked you to provide scientific proof that you were right. The two are not the same thing.

My favorite method of argument is to state a position, and then state my experiential and scientific basis for the position. In science, no one proves their position by asking others to prove them wrong. If someone has a contravening position, they should provide scientifically justification...not to prove someone else wrong...but to support their own position.

I get it, you took the easy way out and just deflected from your inability to scientifically justify your position. Deceitful and dishonest!

The fact that you have to make gross deflections, gross misrepresentations, and outright lie to make a point indicates that you don't have confidence in your positions.

It appears to me that you have nothing of substance to contribute to this thread other than bickering.

You are obviously missing the humor I intended. Completely.

No one (including me) cares if I am right or wrong, I never said I was. I asked Multiple times where you got this training you keep referring to, and simply wondered "aloud" as to why not use Blind testing.
It was a simple question.
I never heard of Training Bias away, was all I meant.

I never said I cared or like it better or worse, or care about blind testing.
Simply blind tends to remove bias, and your training, I can find zero information about, inluding from you personally.
Was it me questioning where you got your "Training" that started all of this?

Still waiting patiently for the answer!
(Not out to get you, simply curious what training removes bias, back to the ACTUAL question...lol)