Audio Myths Workshop

joeparaski

Well I actually listened through the whole thing and found it interesting. I admit that I did get kinda lost when they got too technical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Joe

zingo

I'll give it a watch.

keith allen

This is gonna be good

treitz3

Why do I have the feeling this is gonna be a really long thread that ends up being shut down with possibly a couple of members banned?

juliusbk4

Sounds chocolatey:p

Midnite Mick

Tread carefully people. We don't want to go through what we just went through....again!

Joe, Joe, Joe...why'd you do it man. lol

Mike

joeparaski

Ummm, I was just....errrr....I mean, I really didn't think that....errrr....I plead the 5th.

Anyway, how many are actually gonna listen for ONE whole hour?

Joe

hearingimpared

Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels couldn't have done a better job. If I didn't know any better I'd swear he is still alive.

This was so slanted that they couldn't even have a panel with the opposing view.

They took the most rediculous examples of tweaks such as "magic pebbles" and simply say "they don't work!" How about, "WHY MR. PRESENTER?" Same thing with power cords!?!

Never gave a reason, for accepted terms used by audiophiles, other than "it means different things to different people." Well YEAH! We all hear differently but the terms ARE defined and it's up to the listener to make that association.

HMMMM the test examples are given and listened to in most cases over a low resolution computer setup. Yeah my $100 computer speakers are going to really provide a good replication of the test.

Hahaha "You don't know that, you are just parroting or repeating what you've read in audio magazines" What a pant load. I guess we're all retarded and tone deaf, can't think or hear for ourselves and have to take the presenter's word for it.

This "Audio Myth Workshop" is so slanted and so narrow minded that I feel I wasted an hour of my time.

See this thread for a more open minded researched view on ABX testing and audio in general.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98139

Of course you need to read through the entire thread to get the full benefit of it.

jm1

As soon as I realized who 'chaired' the presentation in the abstract, I closed the window.

DarqueKnight

jm1 wrote: »

As soon as I realized who 'chaired' the presentation in the abstract, I closed the window.

jm1,

Why do you say that? I am not familiar with any of the people on that panel. I am famililar with the AES and their adherence to the ABX religion. Reply in a PM if you prefer not to address my question in this thread. Thanks.

hearingimpared

jm1 wrote: »

As soon as I realized who 'chaired' the presentation in the abstract, I closed the window.

John who is this guy? He certainly seems to think that audiophiles are fools and idiots. Their mantra of cold, hard, 50 years of science already exists and explains everything that "should" be heard from gear. :rolleyes:


I love the way they played "Stairway to Heaven" backwards and suggested the backwards lyrics then said it was their suggestion that lead to the audience actually hearing those lyrics.:rolleyes:

Face

hearingimpared

Yeah ^^^^ that's him narrow mind and ego and all!

DarqueKnight

hearingimpared wrote: »

I love the way they played "Stairway to Heaven" backwards and suggested the backwards lyrics then said it was their suggestion that lead to the audience actually hearing those lyrics.:rolleyes:

Joe, let me make sure I understand you correctly. You don't listen to your music played backwards?

Never?

Ever?

---

Up to now, I had never heard of Ethan Winer. However, unlike jm1, I did listen up to time 27:50 when I heard these comments and then promptly closed the window:

"Double blind tests are the gold standard in every field of science."

(Uhhhhhhhh....no, they aren't.)

and

"It amazes me when some people claim that double blind testing is not valid for assessing audio gear."

(Uhhhhhhhh....I'm not surprised.)

Here is what I found out about the statistical power of ABX tests, which are known by their scientific name, "duo-trio balanced reference" test, in the scientific literature:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1295761&postcount=1

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1303146&postcount=48

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1304169&postcount=63

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1304187&postcount=64

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1304187&postcount=67

unc2701

It's amazing the effort you put in to researching a topic relative to the time spent making an honest attempt to understand it.

Jstas

Ouch

jm1

He is one of the owners of RealTraps. I have am familiar with his views during my years researching room acoustics. Based on these views and email exchanges regarding a proprietary acoustical treatment, I decided not to invest any more time.

DarqueKnight

unc2701 wrote: »

It's amazing the effort you put in to researching a topic relative to the time spent making an honest attempt to understand it.

What is it that I missed or don't understand?

Why do you believe that my research was not an honest attempt to understand?

I specifically stated in my ABX thread that I "Need Help", so any assistance toward better understanding of why ABX is a valid test for audio would be appreciated.

hearingimpared

jm1 wrote: »

He is one of the owners of RealTraps. I have am familiar with his views during my years researching room acoustics. Based on these views and email exchanges regarding a proprietary acoustical treatment, I decided not to invest any more time.

I thought he looked familiar. HMMMMM very interesting how he thinks his tweaks are the best (which I agree with) but others are jokes.

hearingimpared

unc2701 wrote: »

It's amazing the effort you put in to researching a topic relative to the time spent making an honest attempt to understand it.

WOW just WOW!:eek:

MacLeod

You guys are missing whats most important here - that Poppy Crum chick is kinda hot!

treitz3

unc2701 wrote: »

It's amazing the effort you put in to researching a topic relative to the time spent making an honest attempt to understand it.

Then feel free to help him understand it.

hearingimpared

MacLeod wrote: »

You guys are missing whats most important here - that Poppy Crum chick is kinda hot!

Yep they needed the token hottie to keep their boring, lame agenda interesting.

DarqueKnight

I would like someone to explain this apparent discrepancy to me.

At 9:56 in Mr. Winer's video, he presents a segment which demonstrated that students could not accurately identify the perpetrator of a staged purse snatching. The "thief" was only in the room for approximately 10 seconds. Yet, some of the students were sure that they could identify the "thief" from photos.

At 27:50 in Mr. Winer's video, which is from an October 2009 AES conference, he makes the statements:

"Double blind tests are the gold standard in every field of science."

and

"It amazes me when some people claim that double blind testing is not valid for assessing audio gear."


Double blind tests are the gold standard for the AES society, but they are not widely used in every field of science for various reasons.

Double blind tests, as practiced by the AES society, consist of rapidly switching (every other minute or so) between devices under test. A famous and often cited representative of this type of ABX testing is here: Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity Power Cable ABX Test.

A more complete analysis of this ABX test is here.

This is a quote from the "The Test Itself" section of this ABX test:

"In the first test conducted by John and Manny, selections were held to 60 seconds each. Every time soprano Leontyne Price’s exquisite “Depuis le jour” was cut off mid-phrase, my heart contracted. As a result, when I ran the music in the second trial, I extended a few selections up to 11 additional seconds in order to stop at the end of musical phrases. Although this extended the length of the test a bit, I hoped it would leave participants feeling more complete. If nothing else, it made me feel better."

Really?

60 seconds?;)

71 seconds?;)

You must be joking.

Question 1: Who listens to music in 60 to 71 second snippets?

Question 2: From his offering of the "purse snatching video", Mr. Winer clearly understands that short term visual memory is not reliable for the evaluation and accurate recollection of visual stimuli. However, he holds up a test that relies on short term hearing memory as the "gold standard". I wonder if Mr. Winer is of the opinion that short term visual memory is unreliable but short term aural memory is reliable and "golden".

Mr. Winer and his esteemed panelists refer to themselves as "scientists" and to audiophiles as "believers". I am not aware of any "science" that supports the idea that short term aural memory is statistically reliable. My short term aural memory certainly isn't reliable. I think that relying on short term aural memory in any type of evaluative exercise is evidence of "belief" and "faith" and it is not valid scientific experimental methodology.

Does anyone doubt that if the lady who was speaking at the podium had grabbed the purse after speaking for five minutes and then ran out, the instances of positive identification would have increased exponentially?

As Einstein used to say: "Such good science".:rolleyes:

John30_30

MacLeod wrote: »

You guys are missing whats most important here - that Poppy Crum chick is kinda hot!

Poppy Crum? That sounds like a deli dessert or a bagel.



Can I say that here?

TECHNOKID

treitz3 wrote: »

Why do I have the feeling this is gonna be a really long thread that ends up being shut down with possibly a couple of members banned?

This will simply depends on fellow CP members maturity. This could be either a positive or negative discussion and the posters attitude will more likely determine the end result.

At this point, I'm IN and OUT! However, I will silently follow this discussion hoping it is a positive and intelligent one. If so, I then and only then might chip in (maybe then I'll learn something )

NOTE: By the way, my laptop didn't allow me to watch the video for some reason. I'll try to see to that later on once I figure out the problem.

Cheers!
TK

hearingimpared

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I would like someone to explain this apparent discrepancy to me.

At 9:56 in Mr. Winer's video, he presents a segment which demonstrated that students could not accurately identify the perpetrator of a staged purse snatching. The "thief" was only in the room for approximately 10 seconds. Yet, some of the students were sure that they could identify the "thief" from photos.

At 27:50 in Mr. Winer's video, which is from an October 2009 AES conference, he makes the statements:

"Double blind tests are the gold standard in every field of science."

and

"It amazes me when some people claim that double blind testing is not valid for assessing audio gear."


Double blind tests are the gold standard for the AES society, but they are not widely used in every field of science for various reasons.

Double blind tests, as practiced by the AES society, consist of rapidly switching (every other minute or so) between devices under test. A famous and often cited representative of this type of ABX testing is here: Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity Power Cable ABX Test.

A more complete analysis of this ABX test is here.

This is a quote from the "The Test Itself" section of this ABX test:

"In the first test conducted by John and Manny, selections were held to 60 seconds each. Every time soprano Leontyne Price’s exquisite “Depuis le jour” was cut off mid-phrase, my heart contracted. As a result, when I ran the music in the second trial, I extended a few selections up to 11 additional seconds in order to stop at the end of musical phrases. Although this extended the length of the test a bit, I hoped it would leave participants feeling more complete. If nothing else, it made me feel better."

Really?

60 seconds?;)

71 seconds?;)

You must be joking.

Question 1: Who listens to music in 60 to 71 second snippets?

Question 2: From his offering of the "purse snatching video", Mr. Winer clearly understands that short term visual memory is not reliable for the evaluation and accurate recollection of visual stimuli. However, he holds up a test that relies on short term hearing memory as the "gold standard". I wonder if Mr. Winer is of the opinion that short term visual memory is unreliable but short term aural memory is reliable and "golden".

Mr. Winer and his esteemed panelists refer to themselves as "scientists" and to audiophiles as "believers". I am not aware of any "science" that supports the idea that short term aural memory is statistically reliable. My short term aural memory certainly isn't reliable. I think that relying on short term aural memory in any type of evaluative exercise is evidence of "belief" and "faith" and it is not valid scientific experimental methodology.

Does anyone doubt that if the lady who was speaking at the podium had grabbed the purse after speaking for five minutes and then ran out, the instances of positive identification would have increased exponentially?

As Einstein used to say: "Such good science".:rolleyes:

I only watched the vid once but IIRC one of those presenters said that one must to listen to music for long periods of time because we have a tendancy to focus on just one facet of the music such as cymbals therefore one must listen repeatedly to gather all facets of the piece being played. Is it me or is that a complete contradiction to what the short switching of ABX testing is about?

I absoltely agree that one must listen to a piece of music over and over again to get the full impact of the performance and instruments involved but how can one do this with an unknown piece for short periods of time during an ABX test?

Someone please enlighten me.:)

DarqueKnight

hearingimpared wrote: »

Is it me or is that a complete contradiction to what the short switching of ABX testing is about?

I thought it was contradictory. Perhaps someone more experienced in ABX methodology will chime in and shine the light of scientific understanding on this great mystery.

Why oh why did Einstein have to die so soon?:(

hearingimpared wrote: »

I absoltely agree that one must listen to a piece of music over and over again to get the full impact of the performance and instruments involved but how can one do this with an unknown piece for short periods of time during an ABX test?

One must believe and have faith.;) While you are waiting on your guru to appear with revelation and glory, I have done the following:

1. Read two textbooks on sensory science.
2. Read four peer reviewed journal or conference papers on guessing bias.
3. Read six peer reviewed journal or conference papers on the application of sensory science to the evaluation of aural stimuli.
4. Read two peer reviewed journal or conference papers on ABX testing for audio.
5. Communicated (phone, email) with a foremost expert on sensory science.
6. Communicated (emai) with a sensory scientist who wrote some of the seminal papers on the application of sensory science to aural stimuli.
7. Communicated (email) with three psychology professors regarding the application of appropriate test methods for aural stimuli.
8. Communicated (email) with a research engineer who formerly worked in test and evaluation of audio enhancement for telecommunications networks.

As P. T. Barnum used to say: "Such Good Science".:)

DarqueKnight

Jstas wrote: »

So what do you want, a cookie?

Calm down. You sound bitter.

No. I don't want or need a cookie or anything else from you. My comment was an inside joke between two grown men. I would not expect you to understand.

lightman1

DarqueKnight wrote: »

As P. T. Barnum used to say: "Such Good Science".:)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he also say "There's a sucker born every minute."

DarqueKnight

lightman1 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he also say "There's a sucker born every minute."

No sir. That quote is correctly attributed to Ethan Winer.